|
United States32480 Posts
Blizzard post from StarCraft II Balance Team
Hey everyone, In our last update, we reduced the Stalkers’ Blink upgrade research cost to try and help improve PvZ and PvP matchups. After reading all your recent feedback around the change, including discussions around its impact on TvP matchups, we’ve determined the Blink upgrade cost reduction isn’t necessary at this time, and we’ve decided to revert this change for now. We appreciate all of your feedback and thoughtful discussion around this issue. Stalker
- Blink research cost reverted from 100/100 to 150/150
Our current plan is to release this balance update before IEM Katowice on February 21. As always, thank you so much for your feedback, and we encourage you to keep letting us know what you think!
|
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed.
|
thank the lord, I was having panic attacks back to the WoL days.
|
I say give it some time, Terrans rely moreso than the other races on the Korean meta, which we haven't seen that much of yet.
|
Canada8759 Posts
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Are they tho? Protoss is probably a bit stronger but we have yet to see any overperforming toss in GSL, and in WCS results were mostly expected. You could say Rail above Bly and DNS over Soul were small upset but apart from them we only really had Nerchio losing to protoss rest of the matches went pretty much like you should expect. No need for major change yet let's wait a bit.
|
Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post.
|
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed.
What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now.
|
On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now.
Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. I'll do some research. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect.
|
On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect.
What kind of data can you bring forward to support your claim?
|
I was really hoping for the revert on thor range, I really struggle against mech armies unless I kill T early as Z. Glad about the blink though, every PvP was darn stalker opener and my oracles were getting supper shrekt and the timing was hard to survive.
|
On February 13 2019 07:37 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect. What kind of data can you bring forward to support your claim?
Oh and the other game he lost vs terran, he chose the worst build, even the casters wanted to play against stats with him using that build. This takes a match away from terran and gives it to protoss, now edit those numbers .
I'll do more research and report back.
I need to find the demu vod of him showing the ladder stats, it's quite ridiculous. That will definitely count for something. A little hint-protoss vs terran is every tosses best match, BY A LARGE MARGIN.....even the protosses who's worst matchup was historically vs terran, it is now their best. food for thought.
In terms of stats, casters & demuslim were talking about him being sick. It's in the vods, you can verify them.
|
I think it's time to bring the old Cyclone back. With cheaper robo and faster warpgate research Protoss now has the tools to deal with proxy stuff more easily and the Cyclone was the unit which allowed terran to keep Protoss economy somewhat in check in the early game. Now every Protoss can just go blind 3 nexus without scouting.
Also what I'd like to see: revert the thor buff and buff the viking instead. Thor is way to clunky and it's difficult to transition to them as a bio player.
|
Canada8759 Posts
On February 13 2019 07:43 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:37 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect. What kind of data can you bring forward to support your claim? Oh and the other game he lost vs terran, he chose the worst build, even the casters wanted to play against stats with him using that build. This takes a match away from terran and gives it to protoss, now edit those numbers . I'll do more research and report back. I need to find the demu vod of him showing the ladder stats, it's quite ridiculous. That will definitely count for something. A little hint-protoss vs terran is every tosses best match, BY A LARGE MARGIN.....even the protosses who's worst matchup was historically vs terran, it is now their best. food for thought. In terms of stats, casters & demuslim were talking about him being sick. It's in the vods, you can verify them.
I mean did you watch Heromarie build in WCS? That combat shield push was one of the stupidest thing I ever saw gotta take those away if we start doing that.
Anyhow I'm open to see the number
|
This the problem with the current balance team. We have not had enough time to decide whether or not TvP is terran favored or protoss favored. It definitely is protoss favored on the ladder, but what about in GSL? We've only had a few groups... why are they creating a balance change after just a few groups? Stop changing the game, and let the pros figure everything out.
This isn't Dota or league of legends. This is starcraft.
|
On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. I'll do some research. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect.
What a bunch of lies! I don't know where you get that Stats was sick during his GSL matches, but if you talk about 2nd game vs Cure - there were no storm for Stats. He rushed templar archives specifically for one HT to get feedback on the raven. In 3rd game he couldn't land storm on bio because Cure send his raven forward to disable HTs.
|
I received a warning for talking about balance related discussion pertaining to a specific balance related update IN THAT ACTUAL THREAD. What the fuck is wrong with the mod team? You are all retarded.
User was warned for this post.
|
I'm glad they reverted it but the balance team needs to chill with the constant updates and redesigns for real.
|
Wont have to sweat bullets fearing the return of Blink Stalker allins in PvT
|
It's a very confusing time from Blizzard right now. If they felt these changes were absolutely necessary for Protoss to be viable and good, then they should stick by that and raise the other races up to match the powerlevel introduced instead of reverting these things. however, many many people were vocal that the previous patch was a mistake (myself included) so I'm glad to see some walkback on it. I don't personally mind Protoss being strong. I just want the other races to be raised up to their level of power.
|
Canada8759 Posts
On February 13 2019 07:56 Rodya wrote: This the problem with the current balance team. We have not had enough time to decide whether or not TvP is terran favored or protoss favored. It definitely is protoss favored on the ladder, but what about in GSL? We've only had a few groups... why are they creating a balance change after just a few groups? Stop changing the game, and let the pros figure everything out.
This isn't Dota or league of legends. This is starcraft.
Well it's a small enough change, I think it's fair to do it. It's not like they reverted back the entire patch.
|
On February 13 2019 07:56 Rodya wrote: This the problem with the current balance team. We have not had enough time to decide whether or not TvP is terran favored or protoss favored. It definitely is protoss favored on the ladder, but what about in GSL? We've only had a few groups... why are they creating a balance change after just a few groups? Stop changing the game, and let the pros figure everything out.
This isn't Dota or league of legends. This is starcraft.
The ladder is the important part, it's the people giving them money and a lot of those don't care much about e-sports.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post.
i don't understand how a constructive critic is being warned. he is just talking about the state of the game and a way to improve things, i would re contract Broodwar balance team and let them alone for 6 month to see what they can do.
the only thing that bothers me about SC2 is that blizzard wants every unit to be useful in all the match ups when that's not needed, i think a decrease in cost of the factory or time would come handy without buff or nerfing units..
|
On February 13 2019 08:40 BonitiilloO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post. i don't understand how a constructive critic is being warned. he is just talking about the state of the game and a way to improve things, i would re contract Broodwar balance team and let them alone for 6 month to see what they can do. the only thing that bothers me about SC2 is that blizzard wants every unit to be useful in all the match ups when that's not needed, i think a decrease in cost of the factory or time would come handy without buff or nerfing units.. he was probably warned for his last sentence
|
On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now.
i dont have it at hand but someone recently posted ladder winrates here. didnt look too good for terran and even worse for zerg.
|
I don't get it. Do they enjoy watching a2 base tank + scv rushes every TVP? Is this what they had envisioned for the matchup?
It's not even about balance anymore. The whole design of the matchup is rotten to the core.
|
On February 13 2019 07:43 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:37 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect. What kind of data can you bring forward to support your claim? Oh and the other game he lost vs terran, he chose the worst build, even the casters wanted to play against stats with him using that build. This takes a match away from terran and gives it to protoss, now edit those numbers . I'll do more research and report back. I need to find the demu vod of him showing the ladder stats, it's quite ridiculous. That will definitely count for something. A little hint-protoss vs terran is every tosses best match, BY A LARGE MARGIN.....even the protosses who's worst matchup was historically vs terran, it is now their best. food for thought. In terms of stats, casters & demuslim were talking about him being sick. It's in the vods, you can verify them. So what you're saying is, when protoss loses it's the players off their game, but when terran loses it's a balance issue?
These weird double standards have used since the game started, though back then when faced with TvP and TvZ stats favouring Terran by significant margins, the TL terrans just argued that the terran players were simply better and no changes were needed.
On the topic of this change, it's fine. There was concern even from protoss players when all the changes were announced that faster warpgate combined with slightly quicker blink could be a bit much. I figured it would probably have to be toned down a bit.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. I'll do some research. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect.
A lot of people are saying this on a couple of forums but it's not represented by actual pro results.
I've been disappointed to see some of blizzard's official casters bringing this up repeatedly, doing what amounts pretty much to balance whine on stream (which riles up a lot of viewers) when their opinions are seemingly biased by their choice of race and the data isn't there to back it up yet, if it ever will be.
Since the changes PvT went 24-23 in WCS and 6-8 in GSL code S.
There are not even a single "patch protoss" player that i'm particularly aware of - players riding a wave of imbalance to tournament spots and victories against players that they weren't capable of matching the day before the patch. A variety of such players in all three races have been established in previous eras of starcraft imbalance that were both obviously far worse and far more long lasting than the current state of the game.
The data points to the recent changes not even hugely impacting PvT winrates (although they're a few percent better, they're not that far off of 50/50 before or after the changes)
With one of those positive changes being reverted and all of the negative changes standing, any gap should narrow slightly.
If it's as imbalanced as you and some other players say and all of those recent results were just anomalies of terran getting lucky or consistently outplaying their opponents despite that imbalance then those results most likely won't continue and you'll have statistics to back up that thusfar only perceived imbalance any week now.
|
On February 13 2019 08:40 BonitiilloO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post. i don't understand how a constructive critic is being warned. he is just talking about the state of the game and a way to improve things, i would re contract Broodwar balance team and let them alone for 6 month to see what they can do. the only thing that bothers me about SC2 is that blizzard wants every unit to be useful in all the match ups when that's not needed, i think a decrease in cost of the factory or time would come handy without buff or nerfing units..
Neither do I, But hey, if they feel like warning people like myself for providing real well presented constructive feedback that could possibly be of value, that's on them. Makes me not want to buy their merch lol.
|
In practice this amounts to ~1 less stalker during blink timings. Not game-breaking in longer matches, but makes blink all-ins less intense against T, which I think is a valid enough idea.
In all honesty, I was expecting the last patch to throw the game into a severely unbalanced state in some direction, but it seems that the dust settled and the matchups are fairly balanced. Color me satisfied.
|
On February 13 2019 09:19 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 08:40 BonitiilloO wrote:On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post. i don't understand how a constructive critic is being warned. he is just talking about the state of the game and a way to improve things, i would re contract Broodwar balance team and let them alone for 6 month to see what they can do. the only thing that bothers me about SC2 is that blizzard wants every unit to be useful in all the match ups when that's not needed, i think a decrease in cost of the factory or time would come handy without buff or nerfing units.. Neither do I, But hey, if they feel like warning people like myself for providing real well presented constructive feedback, that's on them. Makes me not want to buy their merch lol. Wishing developers of the game to get fired from their job is a very fine example of being a toxic hat, you deserved that warning. If you can't see that thats on you, seeing as you followed it up not with an apology but with further namecalling says a lot about you.
In regards to the patch I believe that it wont do much to or from, the game is in a good place overall at the moment. Further adjustments might be necessary but we should wait for the meta to develop before we decide what is needed.
|
I still think most of the changes made on the last big balance patch in november were bad for the game in general. They seem to encourage even more one sided quick wins and cheese builds.
As a zerg who never had any shame in complaining about other races early game BS game ending stuff such as canonrush/shield battery immortatl/warp prism, most 2 bases builds from protoss and terran proxies..
I have to say nydus worms currently seem completely BS as well. I mean i love them, because im the one using them. But i cant imagine how it feels for protoss and terran. Over the next few months, just because of the existence of the nydus worms, we should see build diversity from other races greatly diminish ( it might have been needed, as vZ builds possibilities were completely over the top in XvZ, while ZvX builds orders were very limited before.
But just because of nydus worms, you will make many builds instant losses vs Z.
This game needs less instant win scenario under 7 minutes in the game, not more.... And the game needs more comeback potential, not less.
Queen nerfs made zerg die to alot more early game stuff, especially with new bcs, faster warp gates, overall faster 2 base all-ins, all while zerg defense got weaker.
Now you bring nydus, which fine, now zerg has some sub 7minutes insta win moments too, but it just makes the game worse over all.
I feel like in the GSL code S and top level WCS, wins under 7minutes should be very rare, and should only happen from big mistakes.
As it is, the games end way to suddenly and quickly even at the top level. The problem is only worse the lower levels you go.
TvP is all about those quick terran all ins and proxies, And its not only because protoss is too strong later in the game... The terran all ins are very hard for protoss to stop.
ZvP nowadays is alot of 2 base all ins from protoss sometimes with fake third base. Sentry/immortal 2 base is back in full force, and with the nydus worm punishing greedy stargate into archon/WP third base builds, it just makes for many many bad games. ( A one sided game where a player dies instantly to the first attack in the game under 140 supply is a bad game in my opinion).
TvZ is still the best matchup, imo. Because there is less instant game ending moments early game than the other matchups. The BC builds were ridiculous for a while, but the yamato nerf seems to have helped a good deal. ( Teleport is still stupid imo, but nydus is probably worse).
Now you got nydus though. It will take a bit longer for players to understand its uses and for the impact on the meta to occur, but it will limit build order choices or increase the quick GG moments.
I wish balance team focused more on mid game ground Units Versus ground Units interactions.
I wish ppl were more willing to take mid game fights in the middle of the map with their armies, and i wish those were not super 1 sided where its GG moment most of the time. The fights should be harder to predict and tell whos gonna win, This way the players might be less scared to fight. Right now its pretty obvious from looking at 2 armies knowing whos gonna crush the other. Because of that, its very rare for players to trade armies as they would in broodwar.
Bio TvZ is exactly that, and thats why its been the most beloved matchup in all of SC2.
Its very hard to predict whos gonna win the fight, mid fight micro is very important and rewarding, and usually 1 battle does not mean GG. The players usually trade units all game long, in multiple places sometimes, in a very close fasion. Just like it should be, just like in BW.
TvP and PvZ fights are just incredibly one sided , and we could add Mech VS Z as well. WIth the power of warp-ins and warp-prisms, once protoss start winning a fight or gets a good fight, the game is over as protoss can instantly reinforce his tech units ( that are always last to die, looking at immortals mostly) with massses of charge zlots, stalkers, templars,(archons),warp-ins, never giving time for opposing player to assemble another army and get back on the feet, instantly ending the game.
In 2017, when they design changed disruptors, widowmines, and burrow fungal, they said they wanted to have less game ending moments. It was a great call.
In 2018 we had the best year in a long time. At the end of 2018, they bring back tons of game ending moments and revert most of the changes they had made to help reduce them.
No sense made.
|
On February 13 2019 09:28 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 09:19 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 08:40 BonitiilloO wrote:On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post. i don't understand how a constructive critic is being warned. he is just talking about the state of the game and a way to improve things, i would re contract Broodwar balance team and let them alone for 6 month to see what they can do. the only thing that bothers me about SC2 is that blizzard wants every unit to be useful in all the match ups when that's not needed, i think a decrease in cost of the factory or time would come handy without buff or nerfing units.. Neither do I, But hey, if they feel like warning people like myself for providing real well presented constructive feedback, that's on them. Makes me not want to buy their merch lol. Wishing developers of the game to get fired from their job is a very fine example of being a toxic hat, you deserved that warning. If you can't see that thats on you, seeing as you followed it up not with an apology but with further namecalling says a lot about you. In regards to the patch I believe that it wont do much to or from, the game is in a good place overall at the moment. Further adjustments might be necessary but we should wait for the meta to develop before we decide what is needed.
It's not out of malice though. It's so they hire more competent people so that players find enjoyment in the game as a result of proper balance. It's for the greater good. I mean, cmon, You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know how to cook a meal to make you a feast, would you? Of course not.
Also, you can't compare me to a "toxic hat" and then try to take the high ground in regards to name calling. That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. If you have a problem with me, pm me directly instead of derailing the thread. Thanks.
|
On February 13 2019 09:07 DubiousC2 wrote: I don't get it. Do they enjoy watching a2 base tank + scv rushes every TVP? Is this what they had envisioned for the matchup?
It's not even about balance anymore. The whole design of the matchup is rotten to the core.
This is the important part, people talk about win rates and what not but have they seen the games? 2 base tank all ins and SCV pulls almost every game. That is an awful meta, forget about winrates and focus on the actual game instead. We went from a proxy meta to an all in meta because they care more about keeping winrates than about making the game enjoyable to play and watch and that is the wrong approach.
|
What i see is terans just wish to still abuse bio mobility, because they practice this for years and crying when this not working vs everything.
BCs is pretty good right now, but terans need to learn play them properly, they are not flying tanks.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
This is the important part, people talk about win rates and what not but have they seen the games? 2 base tank all ins and SCV pulls almost every game. That is an awful meta
That's a design discussion, not a balance discussion. We have changes targetting both game design and balance but it's important not to mix the two up as most people seem to do regularly.
|
I feel that games where protoss fails to build storm/hts even though there was more than enough income/time to do so but loses, should not be taken into consideration when it comes to balance statistics. The same goes for a protoss using the wrong ability by accident throwing a game down the tubes. Those aren't representations of balance, only representations of mistakes.
The same goes for any race.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On February 13 2019 10:03 narbsncharbs wrote: I feel that games where protoss fails to build storm/hts even though there was more than enough income/time to do so but loses, should not be taken into consideration when it comes to balance statistics. The same goes for a protoss using the wrong ability by accident throwing a game down the tubes. Those aren't representations of balance, only representations of mistakes.
The same goes for any race.
And who should be the all powerful arbitrator to decide if one player deserves to win or not? Maybe his opponent didn't scan something that they should have, split their marines quite good enough or the map wasn't quite fair to Terran so shouldn't be included either. Everyone makes many mistakes of varying impact, they are human starcraft leagues and not terminator leagues.
When the data doesn't fit your opinion it's usually better to wait for more data and/or change your opinion to match the data, rather than trying to change the data to match your opinion.
If there is a balance problem large and consistent enough to be worth changing it will become obvious in the data, that has been true time and time again for the last 8 and a half years.
|
On February 13 2019 09:12 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 07:43 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 07:37 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 07:35 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now. Stats was sick during his matches recently and instead of blanket-storming an entire army he thought it would be wiser to feedback a raven instead. Low and behold, that isn't terran winning the game, that's protoss losing it. I'm sure there are other recent games that you are including here that should have gone in favor of protoss if not due to bad decision making. Right now as it stands P > T by a large margin, even when both races play 100% perfect. What kind of data can you bring forward to support your claim? Oh and the other game he lost vs terran, he chose the worst build, even the casters wanted to play against stats with him using that build. This takes a match away from terran and gives it to protoss, now edit those numbers . I'll do more research and report back. I need to find the demu vod of him showing the ladder stats, it's quite ridiculous. That will definitely count for something. A little hint-protoss vs terran is every tosses best match, BY A LARGE MARGIN.....even the protosses who's worst matchup was historically vs terran, it is now their best. food for thought. In terms of stats, casters & demuslim were talking about him being sick. It's in the vods, you can verify them. So what you're saying is, when protoss loses it's the players off their game, but when terran loses it's a balance issue? These weird double standards have used since the game started, though back then when faced with TvP and TvZ stats favouring Terran by significant margins, the TL terrans just argued that the terran players were simply better and no changes were needed. On the topic of this change, it's fine. There was concern even from protoss players when all the changes were announced that faster warpgate combined with slightly quicker blink could be a bit much. I figured it would probably have to be toned down a bit.
Welcome to starcraft 2 and teamliquid, unfortunately. Protoss has been the least played race since the dawn on Heart of the Swarm, so the complaints against them have been from a large and loud majority. Who needs statistics or evidence when a lot of angry nerds can cry imbalance because they "feel" it to be so? These people's cries will only subside when Protoss is completely bottom barrel.... But even then, not really.
|
If you watched the games, you should know. Stats had one game on lock down, never built storm even though he could, proceeded to get rekt. It's not a representation of optimal play. Sub-optimal play is not an indicator of true strength. True balance is revealed when races are played optimally. It has nothing to do with an "arbitrator", you can stop that now. It has to do with balancing around optimal gameplay. Why you are suggesting is that no matter what, only numbers be considered. Which is flat out wrong, because numbers never tell the full story. In theory, with the system you are suggesting is that even if A protoss could screw up a wall 30 times vs zerg and lost 30 games, that zerg is imbalanced solely because of statistics. No, those games don't even count towards balance because the protoss didn't wall properly. Same thing goes for half of those gsl pvts. Same goes for stats, he didn't make the right decisions so how could those games be counted towards weighing balance statistics to see if the sides are even?
Be open minded here, win/loss statistics are not the end all be all when it comes to balance. You still have to sift through those games and make sure they aren't like the examples above. If they are, then they get removed from the sample. Hence why I suggested earlier in the thread that those games not even be counted.
|
I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable.
|
Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On February 13 2019 10:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable.
Is it your opinion that the matchup is heavily protoss favored? If so, why?
My analysis thusfar has brought up that some vocal terran players don't enjoy playing TvP at the moment and would often like design changes to their race to play out the matchup differently.
It has brought up no significant evidence yet of problematic imbalance in the performance of the matchup, e.g. TvP being 8-6 in GSL code S and 23-24 in WCS since the last round of changes.
|
On February 13 2019 06:49 Waxangel wrote:Blizzard post from StarCraft II Balance TeamShow nested quote +Hey everyone, In our last update, we reduced the Stalkers’ Blink upgrade research cost to try and help improve PvZ and PvP matchups. After reading all your recent feedback around the change, including discussions around its impact on TvP matchups, we’ve determined the Blink upgrade cost reduction isn’t necessary at this time, and we’ve decided to revert this change for now. We appreciate all of your feedback and thoughtful discussion around this issue. Stalker
- Blink research cost reverted from 100/100 to 150/150
Our current plan is to release this balance update before IEM Katowice on February 21. As always, thank you so much for your feedback, and we encourage you to keep letting us know what you think!
What the actual f**k?! They came to the conclusion the upgrade cost reduction is not necessary at this time AFTER reading all the feedback (mind this is three weeks after the patch release)?! They could've read plenty of the very same feedback the week after proposing this BS in the first place, but instead they decided to push through with all the changes regardless...
Whoever is deciding on these clearly has absolutely no vision about the state of balance, at all, it's just ridiculous at this point. When you want to try out-of-the-blue random changes hoping they somehow miraculously work out, at least F**KING PLAYTEST them beforehand - the more, the better! How about the test map/test ladder? Too little sample size due to the lack of players? Maybe churn out some rewards in return for helping out... Or even better: Maybe PAY people for doing that ffs...
Oh wait, I forgot management just had to lay off 800 people after announcing a record year, but that's another topic, I guess.
|
On February 13 2019 10:52 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 10:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable. Is it your opinion that the matchup is heavily protoss favored? If so, why? My analysis thusfar has brought up that some vocal terran players don't enjoy playing TvP at the moment and would often like design changes to their race to play out the matchup differently. It has brought up no significant evidence yet of problematic imbalance in the performance of the matchup, e.g. TvP being 8-6 in GSL code S and 23-24 in WCS since the last round of changes.
Should really discount the non code S games tbh. Terrans outside of Korea arent really competitive with top players in the world outside of special. The ro32 in wcs Na is an actual joke. So special crushing those kids means 0. There reqlly isnt even 1 terran worth mentioning from Eu and in all honesty u have maybe 2 protosses on Eu and 1 in NA that are competitive on that level. Stats losing is unexpected but not that unexpected since he has not had a lot of time to work out new meta. What we have seen preceding and during many of the total bullshit eras for tvp tho is the unrelenting onslaught of 2 base all ins. The players know before we do. They play constantly vs the best and they start this behavior when it gives them the best possible chance to win. Same exact thing happened after the last big patch and then toss adjusted vs the 2 base all ins and we got the 6 month proxy shit show. Matchup really never got fixed. The few games we have seen so far say nothing for or against that but the fact that its fairly obvious T still doesnt have the option to play a macrogame needs addressing. Maybe they will eventually open their eyes and relook at chrono like people have been saying since they changed it. U cant have better ultimate tech and be ahead on upgrades all game and expect a terran player to say " u kno what..i think im gonna 3 cc into a macrogame..my future as a pro gamer depends on it..ya ya seems good"
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On February 13 2019 11:55 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 10:52 Cyro wrote:On February 13 2019 10:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable. Is it your opinion that the matchup is heavily protoss favored? If so, why? My analysis thusfar has brought up that some vocal terran players don't enjoy playing TvP at the moment and would often like design changes to their race to play out the matchup differently. It has brought up no significant evidence yet of problematic imbalance in the performance of the matchup, e.g. TvP being 8-6 in GSL code S and 23-24 in WCS since the last round of changes. Should really discount the non code S games tbh. Terrans outside of Korea arent really competitive with top players in the world outside of special. The ro32 in wcs Na is an actual joke. So special crushing those kids means 0. There reqlly isnt even 1 terran worth mentioning from Eu and in all honesty u have maybe 2 protosses on Eu and 1 in NA that are competitive on that level. Stats losing is unexpected but not that unexpected since he has not had a lot of time to work out new meta. What we have seen preceding and during many of the total bullshit eras for tvp tho is the unrelenting onslaught of 2 base all ins. The players know before we do. They play constantly vs the best and they start this behavior when it gives them the best possible chance to win. Same exact thing happened after the last big patch and then toss adjusted vs the 2 base all ins and we got the 6 month proxy shit show. Matchup really never got fixed. The few games we have seen so far say nothing for or against that but the fact that its fairly obvious T still doesnt have the option to play a macrogame needs addressing. Maybe they will eventually open their eyes and relook at chrono like people have been saying since they changed it. U cant have better ultimate tech and be ahead on upgrades all game and expect a terran player to say " u kno what..i think im gonna 3 cc into a macrogame..my future as a pro gamer depends on it..ya ya seems good"
Should really discount the non code S games tbh. Terrans outside of Korea arent really competitive with top players
I do generally agree with you, but this makes the rest of the point come off as "protoss have a 43% winrate but i don't like the way that the terrans played when they beat them". That's a fine discussion but it's one of design, not of balance.
It's also highlighting the lack of data, that this judgement is coming off of only 14 games which could be played very differently depending on which player/group played first or swing 60/40 either way based on luck on any given week even in a perfectly balanced matchup.
|
On February 13 2019 12:11 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 11:55 DomeGetta wrote:On February 13 2019 10:52 Cyro wrote:On February 13 2019 10:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable. Is it your opinion that the matchup is heavily protoss favored? If so, why? My analysis thusfar has brought up that some vocal terran players don't enjoy playing TvP at the moment and would often like design changes to their race to play out the matchup differently. It has brought up no significant evidence yet of problematic imbalance in the performance of the matchup, e.g. TvP being 8-6 in GSL code S and 23-24 in WCS since the last round of changes. Should really discount the non code S games tbh. Terrans outside of Korea arent really competitive with top players in the world outside of special. The ro32 in wcs Na is an actual joke. So special crushing those kids means 0. There reqlly isnt even 1 terran worth mentioning from Eu and in all honesty u have maybe 2 protosses on Eu and 1 in NA that are competitive on that level. Stats losing is unexpected but not that unexpected since he has not had a lot of time to work out new meta. What we have seen preceding and during many of the total bullshit eras for tvp tho is the unrelenting onslaught of 2 base all ins. The players know before we do. They play constantly vs the best and they start this behavior when it gives them the best possible chance to win. Same exact thing happened after the last big patch and then toss adjusted vs the 2 base all ins and we got the 6 month proxy shit show. Matchup really never got fixed. The few games we have seen so far say nothing for or against that but the fact that its fairly obvious T still doesnt have the option to play a macrogame needs addressing. Maybe they will eventually open their eyes and relook at chrono like people have been saying since they changed it. U cant have better ultimate tech and be ahead on upgrades all game and expect a terran player to say " u kno what..i think im gonna 3 cc into a macrogame..my future as a pro gamer depends on it..ya ya seems good" Show nested quote +Should really discount the non code S games tbh. Terrans outside of Korea arent really competitive with top players I do generally agree with you, but this makes the rest of the point come off as "Protoss have a 43% winrate but they lost in the wrong way so need to be nerfed". It's also highlighting the lack of data, that all of this judgement is coming off of only 14 games which could swing 60/40 either way based on luck on any given week even in a perfectly balanced matchup. Seems like your complaints are similarly about the design of the matchup rather than the balance of it
Yeah Im not suggesting one nerf of buff in isolation on either side didnt mean to come across that way. For instance if the 2 base all ins arent solved via meta progression then just nerfing toss late wouldnt make sense there would need to be something early to compensate. Honestly I never thought I would say this bc I never particularly liked how simple the msc mechanics were but thats the last time I can recall consistently seeing great tvp on pro lvl. I would honestly rather they brought it back then another year of this horseshit lol.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Lol, my opinion is that protoss plays way better w/ this iteration of chrono, with shields batteries and with the 3x longer warp in time unless warping to super-power-fields. They fixed PvP and i prefer them in both PvT and PvZ as well.
Too much of P's power budget was spent on instawarps to any pylon and on the Mocore IMO which left other parts of the race feeling weak and empty to compensate for that and T/Z players expressed strong dislike for these mechanics as well.
The version of chrono that was trialed for a while in LOTV was incredibly clunky to use and reduced the control that players had over what they were doing because of the way that it acted as a constant boost which couldn't be bursted, stacked or pooled. I'm glad to see it changed to the currently live version even if it were to end up getting numerical nerfs (which i don't think are justified at the moment) as it's IMO a core part of the racial identity that makes the game more fun to play and more interesting to watch.
If the winrates are roughly equal, protoss feels good and there aren't issues in the other matchups (PvP and ZvP) then i think the focus should be on terran gameplay. It's one side of one matchup in particular which isn't happy with the design. Whatever happens, the best course of action will be much more obvious in a month's time!
|
On February 13 2019 07:31 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. What kind of murder spree? PvT is 30-31 in maps across WCS and GSL and 11-13 in series. Tournament results are nothing out of the ordinary right now.
It is out of the ordinary because the Protoss win rate versus Terran is usually a good bit below 50%, and when the win rate finally equalizes, they get nerfed. So it feels weird when Protoss wins 50% of the time, Terran and Zerg players starting losing to Protoss players they don't usually lose too. To restore that ordinary feeling, Blizzard nerfs Protoss.
Remember Khaydarin Amulet? Literally a 50.91% win rate for Protoss versus Terran before 1.30 and they took Khaydarin Amulet out of the game and it blew Protoss out of the water because they gave Protoss no buff to compensate.
Protoss suffered for months versus the 1-1-1 in PvT back in WOL, and Blizzard wanted Protoss players to "figure it out." But when the Adept was strong versus Terran... the nerf hammer came down hard, Terran players didn't have to figure anything out.
No race has experienced the lows Protoss has in win rates (except for the first months of game) and it is especially bad in PvT. Twice, Protoss hit 41% versus Terran, and those two points are the most imbalanced win rates we've ever seen since the first few months of the game. So the norm were used to is seeing Protoss at ~45%. The 52% winrate Protoss has versus Terran right now has to go to reestablish the norm.
Source: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
|
On February 13 2019 11:53 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:49 Waxangel wrote:Blizzard post from StarCraft II Balance TeamHey everyone, In our last update, we reduced the Stalkers’ Blink upgrade research cost to try and help improve PvZ and PvP matchups. After reading all your recent feedback around the change, including discussions around its impact on TvP matchups, we’ve determined the Blink upgrade cost reduction isn’t necessary at this time, and we’ve decided to revert this change for now. We appreciate all of your feedback and thoughtful discussion around this issue. Stalker
- Blink research cost reverted from 100/100 to 150/150
Our current plan is to release this balance update before IEM Katowice on February 21. As always, thank you so much for your feedback, and we encourage you to keep letting us know what you think! What the actual f**k?! They came to the conclusion the upgrade cost reduction is not necessary at this time AFTER reading all the feedback (mind this is three weeks after the patch release)?! They could've read plenty of the very same feedback the week after proposing this BS in the first place, but instead they decided to push through with all the changes regardless... Whoever is deciding on these clearly has absolutely no vision about the state of balance, at all, it's just ridiculous at this point. When you want to try out-of-the-blue random changes hoping they somehow miraculously work out, at least F**KING PLAYTEST them beforehand - the more, the better! How about the test map/test ladder? Too little sample size due to the lack of players? Maybe churn out some rewards in return for helping out... Or even better: Maybe PAY people for doing that ffs... Oh wait, I forgot management just had to lay off 800 people after announcing a record year, but that's another topic, I guess.
if Trump can be president... all things are possible. except miracles of course. but you are right sir. people don't know what they're doing.
i'm going to take a dump now. good day sir.
|
Just nerf the chronoboost already. This is the main reason of imbalance in TvP and ZvP. That makes Protoss economy and production far more superior than Terran's and Zerg's. Protoss having more eco and production than Zerg- that sounds ridiculous to the core, especially concidering how strong Protoss units are compared to Zerg's arsenal.
Also, i think it's bad design, that Terran and Protoss can rush safely in early game to tier 3 units withoit punishment. I mean harras with BC and Archon Drop??? Imagine Zerg with Ultralisks in 4 minutes into the game.
User was warned for this post.
|
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed.
to be fair, terrans all play the worst build is like everyone is like "lets play especially shit vs protoss so they win and get nerfed"
i mean where do p crush anything right now when it matters ? even stats is out
|
On February 13 2019 10:14 Cyro wrote:
And who should be the all powerful arbitrator to decide if one player deserves to win or not? Maybe his opponent didn't scan something that they should have, split their marines quite good enough or the map wasn't quite fair to Terran so shouldn't be included either. Everyone makes many mistakes of varying impact, they are human starcraft leagues and not terminator leagues.
When the data doesn't fit your opinion it's usually better to wait for more data and/or change your opinion to match the data, rather than trying to change the data to match your opinion.
If there is a balance problem large and consistent enough to be worth changing it will become obvious in the data, that has been true time and time again for the last 8 and a half years.
I'm disappointed that a Starcraft fan used the word 'arbitrator' rather than 'arbiter'.
|
I don't think any of the changes after blizzcon were improvements to the game : ( I'd prefer to play on the 2018 patch..
|
The man who changed Balance
|
On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments.
I want to see scv pulls and 2 base all ins or proxyes or nyduses cause they make the game FUN to watch. From a spectator point of view i want an exciting game. I want to be thrilled and say wow, player A is doing a crazy thing. Can player B see it coming? Omg he just missed the proxy with the scout or the nydus timing with the scan or whatever.
|
On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments.
until koreans terrans runs out of un-figured all-ins. Meanwhile in foreign land, they are 2 terrans in the top 16 players of WCS Europe.
for now TvP is maybe balanced if you play Korean-crystal-perfect and choose wisely your all-ins serie-wise.
That means it's totally unbalanced at every level of play except, maybe, for now, top Korean terrans.
So, the MU is frustrating (for the 2 sides, getting all-ined every game not that fun for toss), strategically very poor, macro unplayable, unbalanced and unfair for everyone but the 15 top kids (who know each other perfectly) in Korea.
At master level on ladder, if you try to go macro in TvP, it feels like you have to play so perfect (with poor information) to stand any chance vs someone using so much "quality of life" toss change (hahaahaha) he can have half your mechanics, a third of your micro, F2 all game long (but still see half the map thanks to 3 obs) and still stomps you after he made 3 huge errors. (but recall good shit) At least when you random bullshit-all-in, you can win if he makes errors/bad build/etc but it's not fun to play.
With any sens, it's not a very good situation. Well, with any sens, nobody would have made the last patch without any discussion whatsoever, hugely buffing Protoss macro starts while it was already way to strong vs a Terran doing no damage trying to go macro.
This MU needs the exact reverse : either boosting bio macro openings (way too long to pop stim/shield/meds etc after 1/1/1 vs upgraded gateway units ), mid-game bio play (maybe a medivac buff ? +25 start mana or 1 mana point = 1.1 health ?), or slowing protoss macro gateway-centric play (the chronoboosted upgrades is a very huge issue, the cheery on the cake that forbids terran to play macro ). But without buffing terrans tanks all-ins.
|
Austria24413 Posts
Don't think this is a change that'll really do anything. It didn't do much in game either. Makes you a bit safer early on as your robo starts 50 gas earlier, but what else does it really do? You can afford blink the second a TC finishes, even at 150/150.
The real issues in PvT are caused by the economic dynamics between the races. Protoss can hold a greedy third base quite easily, and if you combine better economy (= better production) with stronger units, you get a stronger setup. That means Terrans are on a timer every game. Break the Protoss third (or inflict enough damage before) or watch them get out of control. Keeping up in economy is extremely difficult because it removes pressure potential and hands Protoss a free pass to tech into powerful lategame tech like storm or tempests pretty much unhindered, and they'll be favored again.
On the other hand, Protoss needs that early third, otherwise its supposedly cost effective units aren't all that cost effective compared to what Terran can produce off an equal economy bolstered with mules. You get stuck on 2 bases very easily while Terran can then expand freely, keep you pinned back with a stronger standing army, and backstab whenever you move out. That's partially why builds like 2 base double forge colossus or defensive 2 base storm/immortal builds have died out. They're cost effective for a while, but have essentially no map control and then simply can't keep up with the sheer amount of stuff Terran will produce.
This is an issue Blizzard will have to solve if they ever want to really address PvT. They either need to make it so Terran can more easily keep up with a greedy Protoss third through their own macro and tech, or they need to make it so Terrans can more easily break greedy thirds - while at the same time reinstalling some balance between the two on 2 bases, which I think right now favores Terran quite a bit as their expansion timing will naturally be ahead and put Protoss on a similar timer - only with Terran holding all the map control.
|
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed.
if you acutally stop listening to raging streamers and watch results, you would be surprsied how relatively close the matchup is already.
|
On February 13 2019 17:48 Olli wrote: Don't think this is a change that'll really do anything. It didn't do much in game either. Makes you a bit safer early on as your robo starts 50 gas earlier, but what else does it really do? You can afford blink the second a TC finishes, even at 150/150.
The real issues in PvT are caused by the economic dynamics between the races. Protoss can hold a greedy third base quite easily, and if you combine better economy (= better production) with stronger units, you get a stronger setup. That means Terrans are on a timer every game. Break the Protoss third (or inflict enough damage before) or watch them get out of control. Keeping up in economy is extremely difficult because it removes pressure potential and hands Protoss a free pass to tech into powerful lategame tech like storm or tempests pretty much unhindered, and they'll be favored again.
On the other hand, Protoss needs that early third, otherwise its supposedly cost effective units aren't all that cost effective compared to what Terran can produce off an equal economy bolstered with mules. You get stuck on 2 bases very easily while Terran can then expand freely, keep you pinned back with a stronger standing army, and backstab whenever you move out. That's partially why builds like 2 base double forge colossus or defensive 2 base storm/immortal builds have died out. They're cost effective for a while, but have essentially no map control and then simply can't keep up with the sheer amount of stuff Terran will produce.
This is an issue Blizzard will have to solve if they ever want to really address PvT. They either need to make it so Terran can more easily keep up with a greedy Protoss third through their own macro and tech, or they need to make it so Terrans can more easily break greedy thirds - while at the same time reinstalling some balance between the two on 2 bases, which I think right now favores Terran quite a bit as their expansion timing will naturally be ahead and put Protoss on a similar timer - only with Terran holding all the map control.
I'm a Z, so take this with a grain of salt, but I agree with everything said here.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Meanwhile in foreign land, they are 2 terrans in the top 16 players of WCS Europe.
You can easily cherry pick a specific round of a specific tournament in a specific region where one race is underrepresented without it being statistically significant.
Random chance and other factors cause racial distributions to be uneven sometimes despite equal balance and participation.
|
On February 13 2019 17:42 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments. Meanwhile in foreign land, they are 2 terrans in the top 16 players of WCS Europe.
People always use this as an argument. It doesn't hold water. You can't magically make skilled terran users appear in a region when they just don't exist. Europe has never really had strong terran players and a lot of the ones we did have quit early on. Thorzain, lucifron, happy, etc.
|
On February 13 2019 10:52 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 10:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I can see why the balance team doesn't want to make any large change before Katowice, but making a small change like this to the big problems with PvT is just incensing people. Oh well at least the change is reasonable. Is it your opinion that the matchup is heavily protoss favored? If so, why? My analysis thusfar has brought up that some vocal terran players don't enjoy playing TvP at the moment and would often like design changes to their race to play out the matchup differently. It has brought up no significant evidence yet of problematic imbalance in the performance of the matchup, e.g. TvP being 8-6 in GSL code S and 23-24 in WCS since the last round of changes. what about ladder stats. Look up top gm players. Every single Protoss has TvP as their best matchup and every single terran as their worst matchup by a large margin. Is ladder meaningless in your opinion? Why? are terrans just not trying there?
Ther tournament stats you brought up are incredibly low sample size so I don't think they are more representative than the ladder stats.
On February 13 2019 18:20 Comedy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 17:42 xongnox wrote:On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments. Meanwhile in foreign land, they are 2 terrans in the top 16 players of WCS Europe. People always use this as an argument. It doesn't hold water. You can't magically make skilled terran users appear in a region when they just don't exist. Europe has never really had strong terran players and a lot of the ones we did have quit early on. Thorzain, lucifron, happy, etc. Agreed - terrans just happen to be worse.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Balance at semi pro or lower levels of play is still relevant but less so than balance at the highest level. If a race is good at pro level but bad at mid-high masters then it's probably for design reasons.
Changes in the pro scene also take a little while to propagate down ladder and even across regions, more time the further down in skill you go; the fact that people aren't winning a matchup at lower levels of play doesn't mean that their race isn't capable of winning that matchup at that level of play ever.
The tournament stats you brought up are incredibly low sample size
That's exactly what i'm saying, that the data doesn't exist to come to any kind of conclusion of imbalance in the pro scene. Even if the winrates were wonky - and they're not - it wouldn't mean much with a sample that's this small in both number and timespan.
|
Hi Blizzard. I agree with your change. Protoss is a little too powerful right now. This change will help to balance the matchups. Thanks.
|
On February 13 2019 18:26 Cyro wrote: Balance at semi pro or lower levels of play is still relevant but less so than balance at the highest level. If a race is good at pro level but bad at mid-high masters then it's probably for design reasons that could use reworks rather than giving all of their units 2% more DPS. Changes in the pro scene also take a little while to propagate down ladder, more time the further down in skill you go; the fact that people aren't winning a matchup at lower levels of play doesn't mean that their race isn't capable of winning that matchup at that level of play ever.
I'm not talking about lower levels of play I'm talking about the ladder stats of PRO players. Uthermal, Heromarine, Demuslim are all sitting at 40-50% in TvP while Neeb, Harstem, Showtime etc have 80+% in the matchup. you can look it up yourself. Watching their streams I see those terrans get destroyed by 6k Protoss if they try to play macro which never happens against a Z/T.
|
On February 13 2019 18:20 Comedy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 17:42 xongnox wrote:On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments. Meanwhile in foreign land, they are 2 terrans in the top 16 players of WCS Europe. People always use this as an argument. It doesn't hold water. You can't magically make skilled terran users appear in a region when they just don't exist. Europe has never really had strong terran players and a lot of the ones we did have quit early on. Thorzain, lucifron, happy, etc. It's not Europe. It's the whole world except Korea (and then, the exception confirming the rule, SpeCial) It's true NA has more terrans but the level is so bad.
For whatever reason, there's a lot more highly skilled zerg players in the EU region and a few protoss. Maybe it's because of idra's or stephano's early popularity that made people choose the race, or it's just purely random. But you can't change balance around which race has the highest ammount of skill concentration in a region.
Well, for whatever reason, there's a lot more highly skilled terrans players in the KR region and a few protoss. [...] But you can't change balance around which race has the highest ammount of skill concentration in a region. OOpps, it's actually exactly what does Blizards, balancing mainly for GSL-level players. KR top player race distribution was ok in HoTs( hence good HoTs balance ?), but since Kespa's end and the mass retirements, plus some time, it's heavily terran-favored for 2018 (and 2019)
Kr scene is still the best skill-wise, but the other reality is : it is dying number-wise, with no new players. So, will we still continue to balance only for 10 kids in KR while the terran race desappear for the rest of the universe ?
Btw, there are some ways we can buff "foreign terrans" and "ladder terrans" without buffing Koreans ones : the "ease of play" or "quality of life" changes, you know the ones Zergs and Toss got a very lot. (from stacking injects to F2-imune spoting obs to auto-warpgate, etc. )
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
I'm not talking about lower levels of play I'm talking about the ladder stats of PRO players. Uthermal, Heromarine, Demuslim are all sitting at 40-50% in TvP while Neeb, Harstem, Showtime etc have 80+% in the matchup. you can look it up yourself. Watching their streams I see those terrans get destroyed by 6k Protoss if they try to play macro which never happens against a Z/T.
Can't see those stats at the moment but if it really is horrifically imbalanced you'll see it in games that have money on the line sooner rather than later; i'm kinda repeating myself here.
|
Russian Federation205 Posts
When swarm-hosts issue will be fixed ? Protoss cant fight versus swarm hosts on small maps . And on big maps now nydus helping to abuse it
|
Russian Federation205 Posts
Terrans in this patch absolutely imba against protoss. U can win any game by harras with hellions early,drop widow mines, banshee tanks all-in, raven marines tanks all-in, raven harras if protoss no stargated .So much of total abuse things making this match-up impossible for protoss to play.Any winrate of harstem neeb and showtime is high because 95 % on eu ladder if u are 6500+ mmr protoss u play vs 5800 terrans 19 from 20 games . Ofc winrate is high ,, it's just side of eu ladder
|
"90% winrate but can not get my auto-win if i donate all my probes early, MU so so so so hard"
Even too big to be a troll, dunno what he smokes, but i want the same.
|
What people want TvP being balanced for normal players in macro games.
What the situation is right now TvP being balanced for Korean pro players that avoid late game at all cost.
|
There are only 2 Terran out of 16 players in EU WCS. As for GSL, Protoss is doing very well with 5 Protoss qualified out of 10 qualified players. So Protoss is doing well in GSL so far.
|
Ok so in broodwar, Terran could not go bio vs protoss unless it was a 2 base all in timing push because of things like storm/reavers.
In sc2, we see people still trying to go bio even though in sc2 there are more hardcounters. Colossus, storm, disruptors...
I don't think bio is the way to go vs protoss considering the deck is stacked worse vs bio than it was in BW.
So that leads us to mech.
We can never trade armies late game vs toss(or even zerg for that matter) with mech because of how fast they can re-max after a late game trade and because of how slow terran's mech core unit builds(siege tank) . Lowering the build time for siege tanks is the first step in the right direction so that terrans can at least begin to start trading armies late game.
|
On February 13 2019 22:21 narbsncharbs wrote: Ok so in broodwar, Terran could not go bio vs protoss unless it was a 2 base all in timing push because of things like storm/reavers.
In sc2, we see people still trying to go bio even though in sc2 there are more hardcounters. Colossus, storm, disruptors...
I don't think bio is the way to go vs protoss considering the deck is stacked worse vs bio than it was in BW.
So that leads us to mech.
We can never trade armies late game vs toss(or even zerg for that matter) with mech because of how fast they can re-max after a late game trade and because of how slow terran's mech core unit builds(siege tank) . Lowering the build time for siege tanks is the first step in the right direction so that terrans can at least begin to start trading armies late game.
This so much. Trying to make bio the go-to strategy instead of mech was a huge mistake. Especially since the amount of splash Protoss have is absolutely insane.
Lowering the build time of tanks would solve both the problem of not being able to take a 3rd on time, and being able to trade armies in the late game.
|
And they're doing this because? God, SC2 is long forgiven by devs
|
On February 13 2019 22:37 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 22:21 narbsncharbs wrote: Ok so in broodwar, Terran could not go bio vs protoss unless it was a 2 base all in timing push because of things like storm/reavers.
In sc2, we see people still trying to go bio even though in sc2 there are more hardcounters. Colossus, storm, disruptors...
I don't think bio is the way to go vs protoss considering the deck is stacked worse vs bio than it was in BW.
So that leads us to mech.
We can never trade armies late game vs toss(or even zerg for that matter) with mech because of how fast they can re-max after a late game trade and because of how slow terran's mech core unit builds(siege tank) . Lowering the build time for siege tanks is the first step in the right direction so that terrans can at least begin to start trading armies late game.
This so much. Trying to make bio the go-to strategy instead of mech was a huge mistake. Especially since the amount of splash Protoss have is absolutely insane. Lowering the build time of tanks would solve both the problem of not being able to take a 3rd on time, and being able to trade armies in the late game.
It also would have allowed terran to deal with the earlier blink that is getting nerfed next patch. But no, instead they just focus on taking toys away from the players. I'm starting to think whoever is in charge of making balance decisions is trying to sabotage the game. That or they just clearly don't know what they are doing, at all.
|
Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS.
|
On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS.
If you don't mind, Can you elaborate a little bit more in regards to the last line there, be specific.
|
On February 13 2019 17:42 curutcis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments. I want to see scv pulls and 2 base all ins or proxyes or nyduses cause they make the game FUN to watch. From a spectator point of view i want an exciting game. I want to be thrilled and say wow, player A is doing a crazy thing. Can player B see it coming? Omg he just missed the proxy with the scout or the nydus timing with the scan or whatever.
There is a huge difference between seeing a cheeky all in mixed into a series and it becoming the actual standard meta.
If you find seeing the same all ins over and over exciting and to be the pinnacle of what we should expect as rts fans then this probably isnt even worth responding to. Much more likely a Protoss player happy with his winrate vs T that doesnt want a design change would be my guess lol.
|
On February 14 2019 01:06 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS. If you don't mind, Can you elaborate a little bit more in regards to the last line there, be specific.
A meta entirely defined by ultra-high-risk, volatile all-ins is inherently coin-flippy. What else needs to be explained? TvP's aren't being decided by a dynamic series of strategic choices, multitasking, tactics, and small micro-wars, but by one major moment that is highly probabilistic (bunkers just barely finishing, stalkers just barely avoiding a tank shot, etc). Terrans have basically been forced into a meta that's based on gambling, since they feel they have no chance in a game that relies less on getting lucky.
|
On February 14 2019 01:26 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 17:42 curutcis wrote:On February 13 2019 10:37 pvsnp wrote: Meh.
At the end of the day PvT is reasonably well balanced, even if it's heavily dependent on allins. Doubtless the fans will be thrilled to see tank pushes every game, but a win's a win. Tank push or otherwise.
It's not ideal, but I guess the balance team thinks it's good enough for the big tournaments. I want to see scv pulls and 2 base all ins or proxyes or nyduses cause they make the game FUN to watch. From a spectator point of view i want an exciting game. I want to be thrilled and say wow, player A is doing a crazy thing. Can player B see it coming? Omg he just missed the proxy with the scout or the nydus timing with the scan or whatever. There is a huge difference between seeing a cheeky all in mixed into a series and it becoming the actual standard meta. If you find seeing the same all ins over and over exciting and to be the pinnacle of what we should expect as rts fans then this probably isnt even worth responding to. Much more likely a Protoss player happy with his winrate vs T that doesnt want a design change would be my guess lol.
For the most part, I'm sure Toss players are loving this meta. They get free wins against anyone who doesn't copy pro cheese builds, and they have plenty of study material from pro VODs to learn how to crush those builds when they aren't being executed by Maru. And then Terrans get called whiners and told to be happy because tournament winrates are ok. Even Zergs are starting to be appalled at the TvP meta
|
On February 14 2019 02:38 TrashEconomy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 01:06 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS. If you don't mind, Can you elaborate a little bit more in regards to the last line there, be specific. TvP's aren't being decided by a dynamic series of strategic choices, multitasking, tactics, and small micro-wars, but by one major moment that is highly probabilistic (bunkers just barely finishing, stalkers just barely avoiding a tank shot, You just described starcraft 2 for the most part. Try sc:r.
|
8715 Posts
terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?
|
Predictable that they need to readjust balance. I said it when they announced changes. I'm just surprised why they make such obvious mistakes.
On January 23 2019 06:21 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 06:17 WaesumNinja wrote: Well whatever they do people won't be happy. "Let the meta settle" and people will be snarky, do the opposite and people will complain about "dramatic changes", and that sweet spot in the middle will lead people to say "they're just messing with numbers and have no direction". And people are surprised they aren't responding to the criticism. Well, they need to explain it better then. In programming, when you debug a problem, which in simpler words means to figure out why the bug occurs and maybe to fix it, you need to try one change at a time to see what helps. I think balance changes aren't any different. You want to make very few incremental changes to check your progress: have things improved? Is it better than before? What Blizzard are doing now are 10 or whatever changes AT ONCE. This is a huge risk for something to go wrong. It's like you have 10 houses on fire instead of 1-2. It's logical, just think about it. If they still want to make so many changes, Blizzard should use their previous PTR (Public Test Realm) approach so more people are able to test changes, but they don't do that anymore as far as I know. In this case, they should go with less changes at once.
|
giving some races cheaper or more expensive upgrades dosnt make the game imbalanced or balanced. its the Units themself and the compositions that matter. Terran will not deal whit toss better cause the protoss have 50 less gas and minerals to spend.
|
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?
You cant make the only way terran can win go away. its a reason terrans is forced to go all inns.. smart protosses just prepare for it every game, tadaaaa, freewin
|
On February 14 2019 03:59 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? You cant make the only way terran can win go away. its a reason terrans is forced to go all inns.. smart protosses just prepare for it every game, tadaaaa, freewin If you would have bothered to read the rest of his post, you would have noticed he said "blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?".
These all-ins are insanely hard to hold, and even the smallest amount of harass damage seems to tip them toward being unstoppable. As terrans are getting better at them and optimizing them more, they're starting to look more 1-1-1 like than in the past. Gumiho's tank pushes looked almost unstoppable. With ravens being increasingly used to disable disruptors and colossus, I can't see these pushes being solved any time soon.
The whole midgame and lategame issue is separate, and does need solving, but at this point we've only had maybe 2 GSL games that haven't involved 2 base marine/tank/raven or marine/tank/banshee, so it's hard to even tell what we need to solve it. I think the new widow mine upgrade will have a much bigger impact on the TvP midgame than people realize once it starts getting used. With it, zealots will become much less effective.
|
Zergs are extinct in gsl code s and yet b LizarD still cant decide buff protoys or buff tearrun. Wish it was 2010 again because zvt was more fair in those days.
|
On February 14 2019 04:08 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 03:59 MiCroLiFe wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? You cant make the only way terran can win go away. its a reason terrans is forced to go all inns.. smart protosses just prepare for it every game, tadaaaa, freewin If you would have bothered to read the rest of his post, you would have noticed he said "blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?". These all-ins are insanely hard to hold, and even the smallest amount of harass damage seems to tip them toward being unstoppable. As terrans are getting better at them and optimizing them more, they're starting to look more 1-1-1 like than in the past. Gumiho's tank pushes looked almost unstoppable. With ravens being increasingly used to disable disruptors and colossus, I can't see these pushes being solved any time soon. The whole midgame and lategame issue is separate, and does need solving, but at this point we've only had maybe 2 GSL games that haven't involved 2 base marine/tank/raven or marine/tank/banshee, so it's hard to even tell what we need to solve it. I think the new widow mine upgrade will have a much bigger impact on the TvP midgame than people realize once it starts getting used. With it, zealots will become much less effective.
By the time you have an armory, tech lab factory, and drilling claws completed, you have much bigger problems than trading well with Zealots. If you even survived that long. TvP requires a total rewrite if they want Terrans to play macro games.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS.
The main point that i'm trying to get at is that a large crowd of vocal people are saying that TvP balance is broken because Terran doesn't have a chance to win against P which is categorically false. When money is on the line, people are not just beating P but doing it more often than expected so far. TvP since the last patch is 63.5% in favor of Terran in GSL (sample size 16 games) while WCS at a lower level of play is neck and neck (~50% with a sample size of ~45 last i checked)
Ladder isn't neccesarily that way but there are factors larger than imbalance which influence ladder winrates including the population of active, high skilled players. That's lower than it used to be and is heavily biased across races and regions for reasons other than balance. I have an archon team which wins pvp 4 times out of 5 at the top of the ladder simply because we regularly crush weaker protoss players but there are few equal or stronger ones to kick us down; that's not a good indicator that Protoss are imbalanced, we know for a fact that a protoss wins half of PvP games.
Beating P isn't the problem that these people are facing, the way that they have to play to beat P is the problem that they are poorly expressing. The sooner that they communicate that terran design isn't fun and is too difficult for them to play well - rather than that terran is too weak to win games - the sooner they will get changes that they like.
The game exists for ladder players
Even if we agreed with this, the proposed issues would only be relevant for a small minority of the ladder. The meta that you're unhappy with doesn't currently exist until levels near pro play.
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?
|
On February 13 2019 07:14 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Are they tho? Protoss is probably a bit stronger but we have yet to see any overperforming toss in GSL, and in WCS results were mostly expected. You could say Rail above Bly and DNS over Soul were small upset but apart from them we only really had Nerchio losing to protoss rest of the matches went pretty much like you should expect. No need for major change yet let's wait a bit.
In what world DNS 3 top 16 and one "top24" in WCS 2018 over soul who made a single Ro32 apparence in 2018 and went 0-2 is an upset ?
|
it's hard to evaluate the changes of the last patch at this point in time, but reverting the blink cost, aka 50/50 nerf, won't break anything by itself, so stop hyperventilating. so far things seems rather balanced, at least wait for the first round of 2019 tourneys to end before you whine.
|
8715 Posts
On February 14 2019 03:59 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? You cant make the only way terran can win go away. its a reason terrans is forced to go all inns.. smart protosses just prepare for it every game, tadaaaa, freewin If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually.
|
On February 14 2019 05:06 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS. The main point that i'm trying to get at is that a large crowd of vocal people are saying that TvP balance is broken because Terran doesn't have a chance to win against P which is categorically false. When money is on the line, people are not just beating P but doing it more often than expected so far. TvP since the last patch is 63.5% in favor of Terran in GSL (sample size 16 games) while WCS at a lower level of play is neck and neck (~50% with a sample size of ~45 last i checked) Ladder isn't neccesarily that way but there are factors larger than imbalance which influence ladder winrates including the population of active, high skilled players. That's lower than it used to be and is heavily biased across races and regions for reasons other than balance. I have an archon team which wins pvp 4 times out of 5 at the top of the ladder simply because we regularly crush weaker protoss players but there are few equal or stronger ones to kick us down; that's not a good indicator that Protoss are imbalanced, we know for a fact that a protoss wins half of PvP games. Beating P isn't the problem that these people are facing, the way that they have to play to beat P is the problem that they are poorly expressing. The sooner that they communicate that terran design isn't fun and is too difficult for them to play well - rather than that terran is too weak to win games - the sooner they will get changes that they like. Even if we agreed with this, the proposed issues would only be relevant for a small minority of the ladder. The meta that you're unhappy with doesn't currently exist until levels near pro play. Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This half-strawman that focuses more on the idea that Terrans are freaking out about pro winrates, not the overall design of the matchup.
You poo-poo'd away the importance of ladder players as is unfortunately common in the SC community, but in this case it's extremely important to note that all the things that make TvP so ugly at the premier level are only worse as you go down in skill level. When even Korean Terrans are too frightened of Protoss splash damage combo'd with Chargelots to try to micro against it, you have a problem...an enormous one. TvP gets more punishing for the Terran as you go down in skill level, which is why EVERYONE hates the matchup. It's unplayable below the pro level, and it's a terrible meta at the pro level. No one really disputes that Terran is technically doing fine, but that doesn't mean TvP isn't an absolute cancer on the game. I don't know why so many people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this just because Maru is able to cheese his way to wins.
|
On February 14 2019 02:53 Rodya wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:38 TrashEconomy wrote:On February 14 2019 01:06 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 13 2019 23:37 TrashEconomy wrote: Something really needs to be clarified here:
Let's agree that Terran fares well enough in tournaments: this isn't enough to declare that the matchup is fine. All of the wins come on the back of allins, which is horrible design. The game exists for ladder players, and TvP is totally unfun as a Terran player. Being FORCED to blindly go all-in to have an even chance at winning at similar skill levels is repetitive and uninteresting. And on the esports side, watching the same all-ins over and over and over is boring, to the point that I rarely watch SC2 anymore. How many times do I need to see Innovation bunker-push a Protoss' natural?
This is constantly happening, where both sides talk over each other.
"TvP is broken because you have to all-in to have a fair chance"
"TvP is fine because the winrates in premier tournaments are even".
That's just not enough for the vast majority of us. An RTS that can be functionally replaced by a coin flip at the beginning of every game isn't a good RTS. If you don't mind, Can you elaborate a little bit more in regards to the last line there, be specific. TvP's aren't being decided by a dynamic series of strategic choices, multitasking, tactics, and small micro-wars, but by one major moment that is highly probabilistic (bunkers just barely finishing, stalkers just barely avoiding a tank shot, You just described starcraft 2 for the most part. Try sc:r. Do you even watch the ASL/KSL?
Players routinely base their entire strategies on unscouted all-ins.
The last several years have been hilariously eye-opening as players have gotten good enough to tear apart deathballers and people have started watching more matches not involving Flash, turns out SC2 and SC:BW aren't actually that different.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This half-strawman that focuses more on the idea that Terrans are freaking out about pro winrates, not the overall design of the matchup.
It's not a strawman, most of the complaints on social media (twitch, reddit and TL first page of this thread) are specifically talking about balance; either lying about recent terran winrates or claiming that terrans deserved to win more but didn't because protoss is imbalanced in PvT. Those claims are categorically false.
You poo-poo'd away the importance of ladder players as is unfortunately common in the SC community, but in this case it's extremely important to note that all the things that make TvP so ugly at the premier level are only worse as you go down in skill level.
I've played a ton of the matchup recently and the only terrans doing those types of all ins were already in masters and even then, most people below GM didn't play that way. As far as my experience goes, this idea that you must do a marine tank scv pull all in to win PvT doesn't exist for almost all of the ladder MMR range and i haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that experience being wrong or incomplete as of yet.
No one really disputes that Terran is technically doing fine
Most of the complaints that i've seen are actually people disputing that terran is technically doing fine. At first they had no data to stand on and then the data directly contradicted their assertions. You can see many of these in the first pages of this thread although they're far more numerous on reddit and twitch, there has been a tsunami of TvP balance whine in the last 2-3 weeks.
but that doesn't mean TvP isn't an absolute cancer on the game. I don't know why so many people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this just because Maru is able to cheese his way to wins.
Me and Nony are both agreeing with you in that parts of the matchup from the terran side at pro level aren't optimal for gameplay although they're getting their wins. Who is disagreeing?
|
On February 14 2019 07:48 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +This is exactly what I'm talking about. This half-strawman that focuses more on the idea that Terrans are freaking out about pro winrates, not the overall design of the matchup. It's not a strawman, most of the complaints on social media (twitch, reddit and TL first page of this thread) are specifically talking about balance; either lying about recent terran winrates or claiming that terrans deserved to win more but didn't because protoss is imbalanced in PvT. Those claims are categorically false. Show nested quote +You poo-poo'd away the importance of ladder players as is unfortunately common in the SC community, but in this case it's extremely important to note that all the things that make TvP so ugly at the premier level are only worse as you go down in skill level. I've played a ton of the matchup recently and the only terrans doing those types of all ins were already in masters and even then, most people below GM didn't play that way. As far as my experience goes, this idea that you must do a marine tank scv pull all in to win PvT doesn't exist for almost all of the ladder MMR range and i haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that experience being wrong or incomplete as of yet. Most of the complaints that i've seen are actually people disputing that terran is technically doing fine. At first they had no data to stand on and then the data directly contradicted their assertions. You can see many of these in the first pages of this thread although they're far more numerous on reddit and twitch, there has been a tsunami of TvP balance whine in the last 2-3 weeks. Show nested quote +but that doesn't mean TvP isn't an absolute cancer on the game. I don't know why so many people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this just because Maru is able to cheese his way to wins. Me and Nony are both agreeing with you in that parts of the matchup from the terran side at pro level aren't optimal for gameplay although they're getting their wins. Who is disagreeing?
Everyone really needs to stop pretending like the first few groups of the first tournament in Korea on this patch should be grounds for saying "the data says..." The data doesnt mean dick at this point. It took sos 6 months to figure out how to counter the proxy bullshit. You cant say in one post that the data is irrelevant but then come back in another using it as a refutation that there is a balance problem. Balance problems have been masked by Korean terrans coming up with very strong all ins over and over in the past. Eventually these all ins are solved and the problem presents itself. No one disagrees that T cant keep up with P after early mid game. There are actual reasons for why this is the casw. They cant just nerf toss until the counter to the yolo builds is created because the threat of the all in combined with the threat of going late game will be too strong. None of that, including the so called "data" means there isnt a balance problem. Its like saying there wasnt a balance problem in wol broodlord infestor bc terrans can still take games with 11/11. Thats still a problem! We will just have to wait and see until toss pros learn how to shut down the all ins. If they dont then they still need to fix the matchup (with changes on both sides) otherwise we will have another 2018 shitshow of idiotic repetive games in tvp to watch.
|
Ah yes, the typical "just wait guys!" response that always seems to come from someone new on these forums. never gets old.
Some data is just bad and doesn't display everything a race is capable off, for instance the stats gsl games vs T. I don't see how data that includes the protoss *not playing to the races fullest potential* can be used as "terran is fine". There is no logic there. numbers aren't everything. they are only part of the big picture. you really gotta analyze the games, as many as possible.
If a terran forgets stim in a bo3 and loses, how can we even use that as valid data? It's like well, we know that if he had stim that entire battle goes in his favor. That's how it is with stats. He had the money to tech into storm and have it up and running. He didn't. Then another game he uses the ht energy for feedback instead of storming the army. He threw away his dps. These games aren't games that are screaming hey, terran is doing well or fine. These are games are saying well yeah, terran can beat protoss easily when they don't have storm late game or use the wrong ability. They just simply should n't be included in any of the w/l ratio statistics that people are weighing out. Same goes for any game where both players didn't play as perfect as possible. Not getting storm and using wrong abilities is far from perfect. Balance is deeper than you think and goes just beyond looking at the entire box of win/loss statistics. Gotta make sure those players were playing the races to the best of the races' abilities as well aka using it to it's fullest potential.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Everyone really needs to stop pretending like the first few groups of the first tournament in Korea on this patch should be grounds for saying "the data says..." The data doesnt mean dick at this point. It took sos 6 months to figure out how to counter the proxy bullshit. You cant say in one post that the data is irrelevant but then come back in another using it as a refutation that there is a balance problem.
The sky is not falling. There's little data that could say that is was, even if that data didn't disagree with the assertion.
Ah yes, the typical "just wait guys!" response that always seems to come from someone new on these forums. never gets old.
I bought the game on day 1 and have made ~48 posts here per week average since 2011, Nony has been playing SC at a higher level than almost anybody on this forum for far longer than that.
|
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet.
We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one.
Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it.
Also regarding If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually.
I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on.
I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me.
|
On February 14 2019 08:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet. We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it. Also regarding Show nested quote +If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually. I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on. I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me.
Why is the general consensus and/or why does it always have to come down to nerfing the side that is overperforming? Why not buff the other sides instead? What is the motivation?
|
Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from.
Most people would agree here. It's too early to tell how balanced the matchup is.
However, the problems are: 1. Terrans misrepresenting a stagnant meta as unfavorable balance, and openly campaigning for Protoss nerfs. 2. Blizzard encouraging this whining campaign by rewarding it with a random Protoss nerf.
This is a negligible change, but it reaffirms how susceptible Blizzard is to a small subset of the community pressuring them for changes, whilst they neglect the deeper or more fundamental issues in the matchup.
I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game.
I wouldn't say it's as simple as that. I've played for a while, and I think one of the biggest issues has been giving Terran positional units like Tanks, Liberators and Widow Mines that work well with Bio. I totally understand the desire for mech play, but every time mech units get buffed, Terran players will just add them in support and enhance bio play.
So now you have a high DPS, highly mobile but fragile army (bio) which can move across the map with positional units and siege a Protoss base until it cracks because you can't go near the Terran army without getting smashed, and you can't go more mobile and base trade either.
I'm at 30% in PvT, and can't figure the matchup out. Maybe I'm too passive and macro focused. And I'm sure that there are Terrans who feel the same from their end.
|
On February 14 2019 10:07 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 08:54 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet. We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it. Also regarding If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually. I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on. I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me. Why is the general consensus and/or why does it always have to come down to nerfing the side that is overperforming? Why not buff the other sides instead? What is the motivation?
The motivation is simply to keep power creep, which could affect other matchups in a bad way in check, I would say.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Power creep is kept in check with equal part buffs and nerfs. Creeping in the other direction with overnerfs is just as much of a problem although not as common
|
On February 14 2019 10:07 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 08:54 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet. We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it. Also regarding If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually. I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on. I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me. Why is the general consensus and/or why does it always have to come down to nerfing the side that is overperforming? Why not buff the other sides instead? What is the motivation?
Well IMO its because the Tempest was buffed recently and it is one of the main reasons why TvP late game feels even worse than before and it's always been a match up that's tough for Terran late game, and honestly I'm ok with it being tough just not THIS tough.
Also, because the BC and Thor are by design just bad units vs Protoss thanks to units like the Tempest and Immortal and the Ghost is already pretty damn powerful so what would you buff in the late game to make Terran better? Vikings? That would be a buff that would impact early and midgames. Ravens? Ravens are already stupid powerful in TvT and we've seen what happens when Ravens are strong and massable it becomes a whole other headache. Liberators? Again same problem with Vikings.
There was once upon a time in WoL where TvP late game felt SORT OF fair and balanced because everything came down to Ghosts vs High Templar. Tempests wreck that balance because they outrange anything Terran has and Storm is extremely punishing if you commit to an attack.
That is why the Tempest is in my opinion the biggest problem in the late game. Protoss wasn't ever given the Tempest to fight Terran, it was given to them to combat Broodlords and ever since the late game vs Protoss has been a major issue. So of course when they get buffed so they can fucking kite VIKINGS now, of course it's gonna be a big problem.
This is why Terrans just don't want to play late game vs Protoss. It's always been a headache, but the buffed Tempest just makes it ridiculous.
|
On February 14 2019 11:55 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 10:07 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 08:54 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet. We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it. Also regarding If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually. I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on. I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me. Why is the general consensus and/or why does it always have to come down to nerfing the side that is overperforming? Why not buff the other sides instead? What is the motivation? Well IMO its because the Tempest was buffed recently and it is one of the main reasons why TvP late game feels even worse than before and it's always been a match up that's tough for Terran late game, and honestly I'm ok with it being tough just not THIS tough. Also, because the BC and Thor are by design just bad units vs Protoss thanks to units like the Tempest and Immortal and the Ghost is already pretty damn powerful so what would you buff in the late game to make Terran better? Vikings? That would be a buff that would impact early and midgames. Ravens? Ravens are already stupid powerful in TvT and we've seen what happens when Ravens are strong and massable it becomes a whole other headache. Liberators? Again same problem with Vikings. There was once upon a time in WoL where TvP late game felt SORT OF fair and balanced because everything came down to Ghosts vs High Templar. Tempests wreck that balance because they outrange anything Terran has and Storm is extremely punishing if you commit to an attack. That is why the Tempest is in my opinion the biggest problem in the late game. Protoss wasn't ever given the Tempest to fight Terran, it was given to them to combat Broodlords and ever since the late game vs Protoss has been a major issue. So of course when they get buffed so they can fucking kite VIKINGS now, of course it's gonna be a big problem. This is why Terrans just don't want to play late game vs Protoss. It's always been a headache, but the buffed Tempest just makes it ridiculous.
The reason why TvP sucks is because our only unit comp we are allowed to use is hardcountered by 3 different units. Templars(storms), Colossus and disruptors.
That's why no one wants to play it.
Yet terran has another whole half of the techtree(or 2/3 of a tech tree if we count air) that we can't use because of expensive gas costs and slow unit build times. It's impossible to trade armies with mech late game.
Can we get adjustments made so that we aren't pigeonholed into getting hardcountered every game with bio? That'd be great.
|
On February 14 2019 12:02 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 11:55 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 14 2019 10:07 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 14 2019 08:54 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Time out Nony, We haven't seen much of anything in GSL yet. We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. Hold on before we start with the "Terran is winning in GSL" stuff, we have barely seen anything yet and of the results we have seen I can very easily argue are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think TvP is as bad at the moment as lot of people think it is, but I'd wait until at LEAST the Ro32 is over before I start making any arguments based around it. Also regarding If balance is achieved by the "tactical wheel" or "rock paper scissors" and blind counters, then everyone is going to be miserable.
A situation needs to be figured out that involves scouting and decision-making. Right now the work toward that is just being postponed. It will have to be done eventually. I don't think ANY Terran likes the idea that you have to all in to win vs Protoss, the argument is that late game TvP feels so unwinnable right now that it feels like you're forced to end the game early or else face an impossibly hard match up later on. I think any Terran would gladly trade a nerf to proxy bullshit and SCV pulls if it means that Protoss gets hit with the nerfbat in the late game. Blizzard TRIED to buff the BCs and the Thor to help with this issue but they turned around and buffed the shit out of Tempests which laugh at either of those units. why Blizz seems to think that Thors are EVER going to be an effective weapon vs something like the Tempest is beyond me. Why is the general consensus and/or why does it always have to come down to nerfing the side that is overperforming? Why not buff the other sides instead? What is the motivation? Well IMO its because the Tempest was buffed recently and it is one of the main reasons why TvP late game feels even worse than before and it's always been a match up that's tough for Terran late game, and honestly I'm ok with it being tough just not THIS tough. Also, because the BC and Thor are by design just bad units vs Protoss thanks to units like the Tempest and Immortal and the Ghost is already pretty damn powerful so what would you buff in the late game to make Terran better? Vikings? That would be a buff that would impact early and midgames. Ravens? Ravens are already stupid powerful in TvT and we've seen what happens when Ravens are strong and massable it becomes a whole other headache. Liberators? Again same problem with Vikings. There was once upon a time in WoL where TvP late game felt SORT OF fair and balanced because everything came down to Ghosts vs High Templar. Tempests wreck that balance because they outrange anything Terran has and Storm is extremely punishing if you commit to an attack. That is why the Tempest is in my opinion the biggest problem in the late game. Protoss wasn't ever given the Tempest to fight Terran, it was given to them to combat Broodlords and ever since the late game vs Protoss has been a major issue. So of course when they get buffed so they can fucking kite VIKINGS now, of course it's gonna be a big problem. This is why Terrans just don't want to play late game vs Protoss. It's always been a headache, but the buffed Tempest just makes it ridiculous. The reason why TvP sucks is because our only unit comp we are allowed to use is hardcountered by 3 different units. Templars(storms), Colossus and disruptors. That's why no one wants to play it. Yet terran has another whole half of the techtree(or 2/3 of a tech tree if we count air) that we can't use because of expensive gas costs and slow unit build times. It's impossible to trade armies with mech late game. Can we get adjustments made so that we aren't pigeonholed into getting hardcountered every game with bio? That'd be great.
I mean, we actually see Siege Tanks vs Protoss now which is something we never used to see back in the day outside of the 1-1-1 meta.
We're actually seeing Banshees, Widow Mines, Ravens, and Liberators in the match up and even some gimmick unit comps like Widow Mine/Battlecruiser (Supernova used to do this a lot) can work at everything but the highest level.
The match up has gotten a LOT better in terms of Terran tech tree representation than it used to be. I think the problem is very specific to the late game.
|
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game?
Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me.
Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now.
|
On February 14 2019 11:09 Cyro wrote: Power creep is kept in check with equal part buffs and nerfs. Creeping in the other direction with overnerfs is just as much of a problem although not as common
So nerfing things that are too strong is a more common approach than buffing other stuff in return (and by quite a big margin, I'd say), which makes your comment kind of obsolete.
Edit: Sorry, shouldn't have said that, it's pretty late, should go to bed.
|
I wonder if the balance team was fired. I dont see why they wouldnt have been...
If this was final SC2 balance state, would we all be happy?
|
On February 14 2019 18:05 Snakestyle11 wrote: I wonder if the balance team was fired. I dont see why they wouldnt have been...
If this was final SC2 balance state, would we all be happy? I would be happy with the balance, for me it is the best balanced assymetric game of all time. At least in November each year when Blizzcon happens. The minor issues that still persist (TvP late game, underused units/upgrades, streategy diversity...) only affect top pro players and seem to be more design issues than balance issues. And they could probably be solved mid-term by map makers and the evolution of the meta if there would be no balance team any more. I am happy that they continue to make design changes at the end of each year though, to try to address those issues. Even at the cost of a (perceived?) imbalance at the beginning of the year.
|
On February 14 2019 12:18 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me. Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now.
These statistics mean nothing. Like who wins is solely dependent on balance? On numbers like these you need to factor in skills.
If Blizzard would be nerfing each race based on a few wins or losses in a tournament we will get nowhere.
|
On February 14 2019 12:18 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me. Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now.
How many top EU Terrans are there who should have advanced to the RO16?
|
On February 14 2019 23:04 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 12:18 xelnaga_empire wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me. Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now. How many top EU Terrans are there who should have advanced to the RO16?
People in here are comfortable using GSL results to justify Terran being fine in TvP, I don't see why similar logic couldn't be used in EU to determine that they're not doing fine. 2/16 is insanely bad while people like GungFuBanda breeze on through. I don't even remember a 3rd coming particularly close, and HM was on the brink of elimination. All of this is auxiliary to the larger problem of Terrans going all-in every game, anyway.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
I don't see why similar logic couldn't be used in EU to determine that they're not doing fine.
Winrates are a much better indication of balance than participation is
|
In WCS EU Winter Protoss slightly overperformed with a 7/12(Most notably Gungfubanda advancing over Nerchio) ro16 conversion whereas the 2/7 obtained by Terran was somehow imaginable after the groups were drawn(Soul or Marinelord could advance but not really a big letdown); I want to underline that Zerg's 6/13 is actually kind of a bad considering EU is the Overmind as everyone knows.
In Code S, Protoss actually seemed very strong during qualifiers and performed better than expected(13 compared to the 8 Terran); ro32 tells us an entirely different story: Protoss are currently 5/12 and Terran 5/6 with the only shocking result in Cure qualifying in Stats' place but a 7-2 in bo3 victories and 14-6 in map score for T over P. Meanwhile, Zerg are doing extremely bad going 2/8 with the notable elimination of Solar.
Overall, Protoss are doing quite well but they aren't dominating as someone here implies they are while historical racial trends are respected with Terran doing better in Korea and Zerg doing better in EU; however, Terran aren't especially underperforming while Zerg kind of are.
|
On February 14 2019 22:36 Uni1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 12:18 xelnaga_empire wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me. Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now. These statistics mean nothing. Like who wins is solely dependent on balance? On numbers like these you need to factor in skills. If Blizzard would be nerfing each race based on a few wins or losses in a tournament we will get nowhere.
The problem is that people are using overall w/l statistics from an event(for example, any time someone says "but in gsl") as the end all be all for deciding whether one race is balanced or not but in reality numbers never paint the entire picture. For example, a toss could forget to wall off 30 times, zerglings flood in 30 times and win the game. Does that mean toss is underpowered or zerg is over powered? No, because the toss wasn't playing optimally. How can we use games to judge the strength of a race, if the races weren't played to their fullest potential in said games? We can't. This is why blindly looking at total w/l ratios and using it to decide balance is a VERY BAD IDEA. You literally have to analyze every game.
Balance does not come down to solely Ws and Ls.
|
On February 14 2019 23:34 TrashEconomy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2019 23:04 Zetter wrote:On February 14 2019 12:18 xelnaga_empire wrote:On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? Of the 10 qualified players in GSL so far, 5 of them are Protoss. In WCS EU, there are only 2 Terran out of 16 players left. And you want to buff Protoss more? You got to be kidding me. Blizzard is doing the right thing by nerfing Protoss. Protoss is just too OP right now. How many top EU Terrans are there who should have advanced to the RO16? People in here are comfortable using GSL results to justify Terran being fine in TvP, I don't see why similar logic couldn't be used in EU to determine that they're not doing fine. 2/16 is insanely bad while people like GungFuBanda breeze on through. I don't even remember a 3rd coming particularly close, and HM was on the brink of elimination. All of this is auxiliary to the larger problem of Terrans going all-in every game, anyway.
Yup, this is true. HeroMarine was almost eliminated. If HeroMarine was eliminated, that would have been 1 Terran out of 16 players in WCS EU.
|
8715 Posts
We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. I don't agree with this kind of analysis. That's all that matter is the win-loss when the matchup is so volatile and nobody understands it atm. I would agree that the win-loss is not much to go off of but it's all we've got. You agree with me that the win-loss is not much to go off of, but you do it from the angle that you understand the matchup so well that you know the full story behind each and every pvt that has been played so you're giving yourself the authority to say which games are truly reflective of the matchup and which are not. You are out of your mind if you think you understand it that well.
|
On February 15 2019 01:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. I don't agree with this kind of analysis. That's all that matter is the win-loss when the matchup is so volatile and nobody understands it atm. I would agree that the win-loss is not much to go off of but it's all we've got. You agree with me that the win-loss is not much to go off of, but you do it from the angle that you understand the matchup so well that you know the full story behind each and every pvt that has been played so you're giving yourself the authority to say which games are truly reflective of the matchup and which are not. You are out of your mind if you think you understand it that well.
Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Only data that contains optimal gameplay should be used in analysis when it comes to deciding whether or not a race is balanced or not. Looking at the surface(aka solely at w/l results) does not provide an accurate analysis as i've already shown earlier in this thread that your method of analysis leads to incorrect and inaccurate assumptions. Your approach flawed and we cannot use that approach if we want real and accurate balance analysis.
On another note, Playerskill is not an indicator of whether or not a race is balanced. Playerskill is mechanics(micro/macro/multitasking) and decision making. Playerskill has zero interconnectedness with how strong a unit/ability/race is so i believe that zero balance decisions should ever be based off of any skill level at all. Real and accurate power levels are revealed when the unit/ability/race is used/played optimally regardless of playerskill, optimal is optimal.
I'm telling you guys, people have been using the wrong approach which is why balance is suffering, we've never been able to reveal the true strength because we've been making decisions based off flawed analysis.
|
8715 Posts
Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me.
If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about.
|
France12463 Posts
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it
shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? I think this is misleading. At the time of your post terran wasn't winning in GSL, you probably only considered Code S games but there has been games played on the same patch (afaik, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) in the code S qualifiers. These qualifiers are part of the GSL with roughly the same playerbase as code S, with an incentive to wins from players since they want to advance to code S, so they are meaningful samples of games from KR scene for balance discussions.
Hopefully there will be some TvP played in the later rounds with higher stakes (direct elimination) and less variance (bo5+) between top T/P so we'll see how the meta has matured out.
This kind of sudden albeit small change seems odd because it shows they aren't waiting to see more games nor thinking of a better and broader solution before patching.
|
On February 15 2019 02:19 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about.
You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys.
You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and either removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely OR the end result of those games should not be used as the deciding factor. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing.
|
France12463 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:28 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 02:19 NonY wrote:Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about. You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. Humans make mistakes so every game will be corrupted then and you can't analyse anything, by your logic, so I don't really see the point?
|
On February 15 2019 01:14 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. I don't agree with this kind of analysis. That's all that matter is the win-loss when the matchup is so volatile and nobody understands it atm. I would agree that the win-loss is not much to go off of but it's all we've got. You agree with me that the win-loss is not much to go off of, but you do it from the angle that you understand the matchup so well that you know the full story behind each and every pvt that has been played so you're giving yourself the authority to say which games are truly reflective of the matchup and which are not. You are out of your mind if you think you understand it that well.
I never said or even implied that I was an authority on the match up, please don't put words in my mouth. All I am is an avid student of pro play and what I CAN say is that it is no surprise at all to me that the results that Maru, Keen, MC and Gumiho put up in their groups is not surprising to me at all. Trying to infer any sort of greater information about the overall match up from those results seems extremely premature to me with that in mind.
What WAS surprising was how bad Stats looked in his group, BUT considering that Stats ALSO got 2-0'd by MC in his group, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his results were more indicative of him having a bad day than anything that would imply some sort of long term slump or an unfavorable meta that he isn't familiar with. After all, as I'm sure you know better than I, every pro has off and on days.
|
8715 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:28 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 02:19 NonY wrote:Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about. You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and either removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely OR the end result of those games should not be used as the deciding factor. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. Okay but your idea of balance isn't relevant to competitive play. I don't know why you're arguing about some hypothetical perfect balance with perfect play. It has nothing to do with esports. It's more of a philosophical / mathematical issue.
In the first place, players don't use each individual thing optimally on purpose because they're trying to balance their attention. If it takes 1 second of work to get 90% efficiency out of something, and it takes 2 seconds of work to get 100% efficiency, then players are often purposely doing the first option and then using the rest of their attention elsewhere. So you're gonna balance based on the latter option which players are almost never doing, why? It's not a path to improving the game.
So in your whole perfect analysis of each individual part of the game, you'd have to take human limitations and these decisions into account. It's not even remotely possible.
The goal of balance patches is to keep the matchups within 45-55% win rates and to encourage the players to play in ways that are fun to play and fun to watch and then give the players plenty of unknown space to explore to come up with new strategies and tactics. Your whole angle has nothing to do with any of this. It's not fit for an esports forum.
|
8715 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:35 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 01:14 NonY wrote:We saw Maru 4-0 his group, because he's Maru, and we saw Stats have a really bad day. Outside of that the only TvPs we've seen have been Keen getting blasted out of his group, Gumiho and Cure showing that MC doesn't have a clue when it comes to PvT at the moment and Bunny vs Parting which I haven't seen but I wasn't expecting much out of so I'll give you that one. I don't agree with this kind of analysis. That's all that matter is the win-loss when the matchup is so volatile and nobody understands it atm. I would agree that the win-loss is not much to go off of but it's all we've got. You agree with me that the win-loss is not much to go off of, but you do it from the angle that you understand the matchup so well that you know the full story behind each and every pvt that has been played so you're giving yourself the authority to say which games are truly reflective of the matchup and which are not. You are out of your mind if you think you understand it that well. I never said or even implied that I was an authority on the match up, please don't put words in my mouth. All I am is an avid student of pro play and what I CAN say is that it is no surprise at all to me that the results that Maru, Keen, MC and Gumiho put up in their groups is not surprising to me at all. Trying to infer any sort of greater information about the overall match up from those results seems extremely premature to me with that in mind. What WAS surprising was how bad Stats looked in his group, BUT considering that Stats ALSO got 2-0'd by MC in his group, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his results were more indicative of him having a bad day than anything that would imply some sort of long term slump or an unfavorable meta that he isn't familiar with. After all, as I'm sure you know better than I, every pro has off and on days. Okay so it's premature to infer anything about the matchup from these results. But prior to these results, or even more prematurely, there was so much negative feedback about the matchup that it caused Blizzard to do a rollback on the patch in the middle of the competitive season. So that was doubly premature and we're both in the same position of wondering why that'd be done?
|
On February 15 2019 02:48 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 02:28 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 02:19 NonY wrote:Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about. You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and either removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely OR the end result of those games should not be used as the deciding factor. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. Okay but your idea of balance isn't relevant to competitive play. I don't know why you're arguing about some hypothetical perfect balance with perfect play. It has nothing to do with esports. It's more of a philosophical / mathematical issue. In the first place, players don't use each individual thing optimally on purpose because they're trying to balance their attention. If it takes 1 second of work to get 90% efficiency out of something, and it takes 2 seconds of work to get 100% efficiency, then players are often purposely doing the first option and then using the rest of their attention elsewhere. So you're gonna balance based on the latter option which players are almost never doing, why? It's not a path to improving the game. So in your whole perfect analysis of each individual part of the game, you'd have to take human limitations and these decisions into account. It's not even remotely possible. The goal of balance patches is to keep the matchups within 45-55% win rates and to encourage the players to play in ways that are fun to play and fun to watch and then give the players plenty of unknown space to explore to come up with new strategies and tactics. Your whole angle has nothing to do with any of this. It's not fit for an esports forum.
This is a balance update thread nony. My contributions to this thread have everything to do with how the game is being balanced are directly related. This thread is not about esports and esports has no interconnectedness within the context of discussion at hand. Stop trying to make this thread about esports, that's not what it is about. Your approach to deciding balance is flawed, you got called out on it because various people in this thread don't want any blizzard employees who will more than likely read the community responses to be misinformed and that is that. It's literally okay for you to be wrong nony, no one is perfect and no one is judging you as a person(only your approach to balance!). Enough of the derailing buddy.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them?
Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance.
|
On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes?
|
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes?
Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates?
Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency?
|
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes?
Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm?
|
gsl results dont favor p > t .
|
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm?
Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, GSL is ONLY a maximum of maybe 200 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. I would just add these w/l stats to the ladder and go from there.
Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy though the w/l stats can sometimes point to whether or not balance is present or absent.
Those ladder stats are nuts. Protoss must be having the time of their life. In the history of sc2 balance, there has never been as big of a w/l % gap in favor of one race over another ever to date until now. This is literally the worst it has ever been, EVER.
And there are still people thinking everything is fine?
|
On February 15 2019 06:33 ssregitoss wrote: gsl results dont favor p > t . GSL is currently at 12-6 favouring terran, and 4 of the 6 protoss wins were a fairly rusty-looking Keen losing. The other two were Parting taking a game off Bunny and Stats taking a game off Cure. WCS Europe is at 11-9 favouring Terran after the first group stage.
Innovation's games today showed a fairly strong split push drop style with a lot of liberators that certainly looked quite strong against the currently popular stalker/colossus composition protoss are going for to fight off tank pushes. It's almost as if maybe the midgame isn't as favoured for protoss as people are letting on. That early raven he and a few others have gone for certainly looks like something that could be incredibly useful to incorporate into timings and just in general. Disabling immortals and colossus certainly seemed effective.
|
On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy.
First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked.
Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup.
You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable.
Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss.
|
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me.
hey.User was warned for this post.
|
France12463 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Qualifier Dear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation
These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code S
|
On February 15 2019 07:19 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me.
So, no data again.
On February 15 2019 07:21 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/QualifierDear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code S
As you said they seem to have adapted now. Also that's a very very small dataset. Overall PvT was 52.8% in the GSL qualifiers which is not really that much.
|
On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss.
The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed.
The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses.
|
On February 15 2019 07:36 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed. The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses.
So you didn't even read my post. Nice discussion you're having there with yourself.
Edit: Again you're making the claim that TvP is imbalanced. In a discussion it's on the one making the claim to prove it not the other way around. Btw: If it's about balance for you, unless you are top GM (which you might just be and I don't know about it), then pro winrates are totally irrelevant for you, because you're not even close to their level. At master's the matchups will already be looking totally different.
|
On February 15 2019 07:36 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed. The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses.
The point you did not get is that you absolutely cannot approach a highly competitive skill-based game like Starcraft with this kind of attitude, there is an immense misunderstanding on your end regarding the nature of the game and how to extract the maximum amount of joy out of it.
StarCraft is the hardest game I know of by far, it's just insanely hard. Sure, you can play the campaigns or tend to custom maps (arcade or coop commander in SC2, as well) if you want a multiplayer experience outside of an competitive environment, but at the core the game has evolved around being a 1v1 game which just happens to be one of the pillars of esports.
The premise of playing this game is to improve and learn from your mistakes and you literally can play for an infinite amount of time and still won't be able to master it, but that's where the long-term excitement and fun come from, the potentially endless loop of losing -> improving -> winning until you're losing -> repeat. And a great way in addition to just keep playing is to watch someone who is far better than you play your race, pick up stuff high tier players found out, get new ideas for builds etc., so stating that you as consumer get nothing out of professional tournament play is simply not true.
Day[9] actually described this very accurately in the series he did when Remastered was released, he said StarCraft is a game of constant crisis management where stuff goes wrong all the time and the player doing less mistakes wins the game. While it would be ideal to maintain a somewhat balanced state throughout all levels of play, it not only makes little sense considering the amount of mistakes lesser players tend to make, but due to the asymetrical race design it's outright impossible, I'd say.
Maybe this game just isn't your cup of tea, you simply did not realize it, yet. The underlying principles of StarCraft, namely its difficulty, are what we all here thoroughly appreciate and which set it apart from any other game.
|
On February 13 2019 07:56 Rodya wrote: This the problem with the current balance team. We have not had enough time to decide whether or not TvP is terran favored or protoss favored. It definitely is protoss favored on the ladder, but what about in GSL? We've only had a few groups... why are they creating a balance change after just a few groups? Stop changing the game, and let the pros figure everything out.
This isn't Dota or league of legends. This is starcraft.
This game stopped being starcraft a long long time ago. Its APM wars and worker harass-craft now.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gateways automatically transform into warpgates?
You can't turn it off so that occasionally even does stuff that you don't want it to
Did anybody really ask for that, either? I took that as a change that they made for like gold league players and not anybody who took ladder or competitive play seriously.
|
Protoss did really well in the GSL qualifiers. 13 Protoss qualified, with 10 Zerg qualified next,and then 9 Terran qualified. I think this small nerf by Blizzard to Protoss will help to balance the matchup.
|
France12463 Posts
On February 15 2019 07:24 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:19 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me. So, no data again. Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:21 Poopi wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/QualifierDear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code S As you said they seem to have adapted now. Also that's a very very small dataset. Overall PvT was 52.8% in the GSL qualifiers which is not really that much. The size of the dataset doesn't really matter that much here because the KR scene is so small you won't have a huge dataset of meaningful games. Since you can't really do a quantitative study to assess the problem, you have to do a qualitative study. And qualitatively, these results tell you a lot because by now we are able to gauge players level precisely and Dear is far worse than Maru, PartinG is worse than TY and Creator is far worse than INnoVation. If these results (far worse or worse players repeatedly beating better players all of a sudden) were to happen again a few weeks after, that would probably indicate a serious problem.
In Europe terrans mostly got trashed by zergs so we didn't really get to see TvP that much, and now there are only two terrans.
In NA there is huge discrepancy of skill level between players so I don't think this region is very good to evaluate balance compared to EU / KR.
And yeah terrans seem to have adapted so I'd rather wait and see if there is a real problem after the meta develops a bit.
However I don't agree with your assumption that you need data to prove and/or discuss that a match-up is imbalanced because we don't have as much data as blizzard has, and you could always say: "not enough data bro" or cherry pick data fitting one or the other narrative, which doesn't add much to the discussion. Imo we need to have a look at the data available, and keep in mind that there could be design problems & balance problems tied together.
|
Someone else brought it up but all the TvP complainers kinda buried it. Does anyone else think that nydus exit speed needs to be massively toned down? Either that or make it take way longer to pop or way easier to kill with workers or other units. Right now it can hit before warpgate finishes and because it empties so fast, queens are basically guaranteed to be able to transfuse it, making the rush more or less unstoppable, not to mention you can start multiple worms, which makes it more or less impossible to block both from popping with the number of units protoss would normally have at the 4 minute mark. You can have a worm starting to pop at around 3:30 to 3:40 and have 3-4 queens and roaches exit out at around 4 minutes. Unless protoss specifically prepares for it, I'm not sure how they can ever hold it. It hits so quickly that, depending on the map, you might not even be able to adept scout it in time.
Even zerg pros and prominent streamers were saying the new nydus is way too good.
|
Nydus is way way too good, but zergs players aren't natural abusers (they need more time than T/P to fully abuse OP shit), so this is not in practice the priority to balance.
In TvP we pay the debt of more than one year of non-balanced "normal" macro play, issue throw under the carpet by reactored cyclons builds/the proxy meta cooked by Maru+$o$. Then $o$ (partially) solved it and Blizzard removed it altogether with the post-blizzcon patch (no more reactored cylcons, corner stone of the proxy meta). With the proxy meta dead and "straight macro" games still unplayable, Terrans returned back to well-know 2 bases all-ins as the only way to win at decent levels. In my opinion (T), a meta way worse to play and watch than the proxy meta.
I hear people saying "Protoss have much aoe to play bio" etc, but in SC2 it is historically false: in TvP bio as been way more successful than mech for years and years and years. Thus the best way out of this sad situation is to work on TvP bio macro, and maybe nerfing a bit some terran all-ins.
So they are 2 main points: I: buffing terran bio mid game / nerfing toss PvT midgame, preferably without affecting other MU II: nerfing terran 2 bases all-ins, without impacting too much opening and mid-game strength
I-a] Buffing T bio mid-gamer vs toss
From a Terran perspective, the issue of going macro vs protoss is "everything protoss is way faster" : decent bio (decent number, stim, shield, meds ) is longer to get than blink/charge/gates, terran upgrades are way longer than chronoboosted upgrades, terran 3-bases production infrastructure is way longer to establish than toss, terran production cycles are way longer than gateway-focused toss, etc, etc, etc.
So, without touching core units themselves, i'm proposing ideas to buff the bio infrastructure build-up, like :
- -10 sec on stim research
- -10 sec on combat shield research
- +25 mana on new medivacs. No-energy medivacs and most of the bio mid-life is a classic in this MU when the protoss play gateway/trade centric. Maybe heal 1.1 heath point per energy point instead of 1 ?. Maybe lower medivac build time or cost ? (75, 75 ? )
- -10 sec techlab and reactor build time. x2 health point for add-ons (stim-snipping is both the most easy and most inpactfull tech-snipe of the game)
- Techlabs can do double upgrade simultaneously ?
- -5 sec on orbital research: with the "macro mechanics change" way back, mule was toned down, but a CC still loose the same time to morph into orbital command.
I-b] Nerfing PvT toss mid-game ?
The most obvious issue is chronoboosted double-upgrades. Second one is the strength of Recall. Too much recalls and/or too speedy recalls. thus T can't profit from their historically strongest point in the MU. Recalling on a nexus under an army should at least partially punish the recalling army, and not, like this is actually the case in this MU, the opponent army (auto-focusing buildings, etc). A few seconds more "recall time" at nexus destination (and a few less from the departing point), even if units are not damageable, should help the terran get away.
II] Nerfing Terran 2-bases all-ins.
- The more obvious way to do this is to nerf the tanks only versus toss (-dmg on protoss shield), because let's face it, tanks are only good (and used) for all-ins and defense in this MU, as a macro unit they are already a bad idea.
- The second most obvious way is the raven. Maybe we should take a u-turn on the raven : make it less powerful but less expansive. Delete/hard nerf the 2 fancy spells, but make it half the price and build time. Maybe even without lab tech.
- In this process we should watch carefully early defense versus protoss 1/2 base all-ins/hard pokes. In case of issues, maybe reverse warpgate research time, smart buff the bunker (ideally buffing defending bunkers but not offending ones.), etc.
The most difficult thing is to find a decent way for T to open decently into 3-bases macro (still able to hold Toss all-ins), while not offering the same tools to do insane 2-bases all-ins. Without modifications to fast warp, blink & prisms, this seems hard, but i'am very open to yours ideas.
My propositions intend to speed-up bio opening and build-up while nerfing tanks (atm the corner stone of both early defense and 2bases all-ins), then nerfing mid-game chronoboosted upgrades and Protoss Recall-based super high mobility. It's only some ideas : i am open to yours.
|
On February 15 2019 05:40 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates? Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency? QoL changes are terrible usually. Imagine if zerg could build on top of creep tumors. Not a big deal but it needlessly dumbs down the game. Leave reactor and tech lab as it is and revert warp gate change.
The little annoying details each race has to deal with make it beautiful. Should zergs be able to do the hold position larva trick in sc2? While itd be nice for zergs, it is inorganic. The game is what the game is - stop changing it (after removing swarm hosts and reverting the recent patches)!
|
|
On February 16 2019 07:46 Jathin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2019 06:50 Rodya wrote:On February 15 2019 05:40 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates? Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency? QoL changes are terrible usually. Imagine if zerg could build on top of creep tumors. Not a big deal but it needlessly dumbs down the game. Leave reactor and tech lab as it is and revert warp gate change. The little annoying details each race has to deal with make it beautiful. Should zergs be able to do the hold position larva trick in sc2? While itd be nice for zergs, it is inorganic. The game is what the game is - stop changing it (after removing swarm hosts and reverting the recent patches)! So a very early version of this debate about QOL changes was when SC2 was originally introduced. There was heated debate over whether or not multiple building selection would make the game too easy ("MBS" as it was called at the time), as well as having more than 12 units per control group and workers auto-mining minerals. To understand this debate better, it's useful to know that SC1 was centered on certain pro-gamers being known for either macro or micro. Since you couldn't be perfect at both, most pros had to choose one or the other. Since this added such a unique element to the pro scene, anti-MBS advocates had a lot to fight for. In the end, Blizzard stuck with their guns and it created a lot of opportunity for SC2's designers to differentiate the game on other aspects, which worked out fine. The logic can be taken too far (for example, a QOL change making creep auto-spread may not be the best idea), but in aggregate I think QOL changes are a minor part of the picture. In my opinion, game balance debates focusing on QOL are not really worth it. Better off debating the "real stuff."
While I generally agree that there are far more pressing matters to tackle, I'm not really fond of QoL changes, especially when Protoss seems to get so many of them, seems more like 'walking aid' sometimes, I mean, why do HTs need an auto attack when all you need is a second control group? Same with the stationary Observer/Overseer change, it promotes lazy play with F2, auto Warpgate morph is probably fine, still annoying. Didn't like the auto worker rally, either, even the small stuff is a possibility to display skill imo.
|
On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote: Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post.
User was warned for this post ! he try to explain his view ! what a foolish guy !
You can use a new add on, on the factory, to fix the slow production of Tank in late game. We were use it on the Powered Mod, worked well but not enough/player game to be 100% sur.
link : https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/526181-starcraft-2-powered-another-way-to-play-lotv#1 ( Tech Reactor)
++
|
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? I am a (very bad) zerg-main player.
|
It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion... Is TL garbage site ?
|
On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote: It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion... Is TL garbage site ? Yes and yes.
|
Germany25638 Posts
On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote: It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion... Is TL garbage site ?
Right in the feels
|
If Blizzard reads these threads and takes any of these opinions into consideration this game is royally fucked.
Can already tell they are influenced by streamers whining.
And go ahead and warn or ban me for stating my opinion retarded nazi mods.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 21 2019 03:18 KadaverBB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote: It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion... Is TL garbage site ? Right in the feels
Little inclined to reason, crowds are on the contrary very apt for action
|
I think a great solution is adding +5 damage to the base siege of the liberator to make terrans +2 +2 +1 push before the late game much more impactful indirectly making toss either have to opt for more on stalkers or more on anti-air def. For those wondering each attack, upgrade adds +5 damage to the liberator so at +2 the liberator does just enough to 2 shot stalkers like they used to. I think +2 is too long but I think no upgrade is too strong also. I think the halfway point of making it +1 is just fine as it cannot really be abused too early and it comes out just before late game making it an option people would have to opt into and still build the liberator count for. I also think the liberator should get a slight build time buff as it takes currently 43 seconds. Maybe knocking off 5 seconds may help though it may also be op vs Terran a cyclone should still come out faster than a liberator same with a Viking. Buffing bio is too strong as it will affect TvZ and TvT, so buffing midgame units that are needed a lot vs protoss is the way to go I feel like. Another thing that can be taken into consideration is maybe stim research time. Stim being lowered is a very controversial topic but I think maybe by slightly decreasing its build time it will allow Terran to get out onto the map much faster, its also just an upgrade that is basically essential to playing bio but will always come out later than upgrades say like blink or charge and can be sniped off more easily (Reference to Zest vs aLive at GSL that was kind of depressing but Zest played amazingly) Another option to consider would be buffing Terran economy or defense maybe making mules mine the 5 more minerals they used to mine back in HotS to give greater incentive to terrans for going into 3CC Macro builds vs Toss. Cause at the moment there is little to no reason to go 3CC unless you are really confident that you're better.
|
|
On February 21 2019 19:08 Ryu3600 wrote: I think a great solution is adding +5 damage to the base siege of the liberator to make terrans +2 +2 +1 push before the late game much more impactful indirectly making toss either have to opt for more on stalkers or more on anti-air def. For those wondering each attack, upgrade adds +5 damage to the liberator so at +2 the liberator does just enough to 2 shot stalkers like they used to. I think +2 is too long but I think no upgrade is too strong also. I think the halfway point of making it +1 is just fine as it cannot really be abused too early and it comes out just before late game making it an option people would have to opt into and still build the liberator count for. I also think the liberator should get a slight build time buff as it takes currently 43 seconds. Maybe knocking off 5 seconds may help though it may also be op vs Terran a cyclone should still come out faster than a liberator same with a Viking. Buffing bio is too strong as it will affect TvZ and TvT, so buffing midgame units that are needed a lot vs protoss is the way to go I feel like. Another thing that can be taken into consideration is maybe stim research time. Stim being lowered is a very controversial topic but I think maybe by slightly decreasing its build time it will allow Terran to get out onto the map much faster, its also just an upgrade that is basically essential to playing bio but will always come out later than upgrades say like blink or charge and can be sniped off more easily (Reference to Zest vs aLive at GSL that was kind of depressing but Zest played amazingly) Another option to consider would be buffing Terran economy or defense maybe making mules mine the 5 more minerals they used to mine back in HotS to give greater incentive to terrans for going into 3CC Macro builds vs Toss. Cause at the moment there is little to no reason to go 3CC unless you are really confident that you're better.
I do agree that we can tinkle with the Liberator a bit. I'm still on the side thinking that the 10 damage nerf two years ago (wow, time flies) was a tad too much.
|
The balance patch is live now. Thanks Blizzard!
|
On February 21 2019 19:08 Ryu3600 wrote: I think a great solution is adding +5 damage to the base siege of the liberator to make terrans +2 +2 +1 push before the late game much more impactful indirectly making toss either have to opt for more on stalkers or more on anti-air def. For those wondering each attack, upgrade adds +5 damage to the liberator so at +2 the liberator does just enough to 2 shot stalkers like they used to. I think +2 is too long but I think no upgrade is too strong also. I think the halfway point of making it +1 is just fine as it cannot really be abused too early and it comes out just before late game making it an option people would have to opt into and still build the liberator count for. I also think the liberator should get a slight build time buff as it takes currently 43 seconds. Maybe knocking off 5 seconds may help though it may also be op vs Terran a cyclone should still come out faster than a liberator same with a Viking. Buffing bio is too strong as it will affect TvZ and TvT, so buffing midgame units that are needed a lot vs protoss is the way to go I feel like. Another thing that can be taken into consideration is maybe stim research time. Stim being lowered is a very controversial topic but I think maybe by slightly decreasing its build time it will allow Terran to get out onto the map much faster, its also just an upgrade that is basically essential to playing bio but will always come out later than upgrades say like blink or charge and can be sniped off more easily (Reference to Zest vs aLive at GSL that was kind of depressing but Zest played amazingly) Another option to consider would be buffing Terran economy or defense maybe making mules mine the 5 more minerals they used to mine back in HotS to give greater incentive to terrans for going into 3CC Macro builds vs Toss. Cause at the moment there is little to no reason to go 3CC unless you are really confident that you're better.
Stim buff is a big no no. Lowering uograde time will make Marine early game pushes so much op in TvZ, especially with current Queen nerf.
|
That was sure they would revert this, that was really insane.
Hope that will be enough though.
|
|
|
I mean 1 Terran out of 12 players is a pretty good rate
|
and he didnt win a single map xD
|
Something needs to be done with nydus. It's too much. I've never seen Parting complain about balance on stream in a year of watching him but even he was saying that some of the ultra-fast nydus rushes with it are basically impossible to stop unless you know they are coming (which on long rush maps like Year Zero, you can't because your scouting adept can't scout it in time. He showed this in the replay on his stream). Lots of prominent pros and streamers are saying it's too much. Rotterdam was saying that the new nydus is a big factor in why he wasn't having as much fun with SC2 lately.
|
Buffed Tanks (like never before), buffed marauders, bufffed widow mines, ridiculous economy with low worker count, buffed Bc's, buffed Thors.. as for terran whining... Just F*** Off !
|
Warprism+mass chargelots is also insta win for Protoss if not scouted. And as i agree with nydus being ballshit right now, this argument is ballshit too.
They should nerf nydus little bit and bring back Overlord Drops at hatchery tech to keep some agressive options in early game for Zerg. If they only nerf nydus, Protoss will be back to this ballshit state, where thay can do whatever they want without even thinking about possibility of danger.
|
On March 08 2019 14:53 Parcelleus wrote: Buffed Tanks (like never before), buffed marauders, bufffed widow mines, ridiculous economy with low worker count, buffed Bc's, buffed Thors.. as for terran whining... Just F*** Off ! lol its possible to be hyperbolic about any of the races, that proves nothing. Like can you imagine the ability to get map hacks with free building across the map that also makes your units move faster? and buffing ultras so they are even faster?? Instant nydus worm?? ridiculous! /s
|
On March 08 2019 15:02 hiroshOne wrote: Warprism+mass chargelots is also insta win for Protoss if not scouted. And as i agree with nydus being ballshit right now, this argument is ballshit too.
They should nerf nydus little bit and bring back Overlord Drops at hatchery tech to keep some agressive options in early game for Zerg. If they only nerf nydus, Protoss will be back to this ballshit state, where thay can do whatever they want without even thinking about possibility of danger.
not sure if serious
first of all, the prism + chargelot argument doesnt even make sense. if prism + chargelot = instawin, then protoss wouldve dominated all the tournaments over the years.
second of all, don't apply equal standards to all races. race asymmetry is the hallmark of starcraft. the protoss armies are slow and heavily reliant on death balls, ie the armies need a variety of units together to not get slaughtered. without warp prism, protoss would have zero ability to have some kind of sustained map presence (zerg has creep + fastest armies in the game, and terran has their entrenched positions) in the mid to late game.
the mechanics are different as well. the nydus is the most powerful all-in tool in the game. a warp prism, as well as terran doom drop, can be scouted, repelled/killed easily and that's that. and they are only as strong as their cargo. Nydus only needs vision, which zerg has plenty of methods (overlord, overseer, changeling, speedling) to threaten moving an entire army into enemy base. Nydus worms are cheap and difficult to kill with no cool down
of course there are the little things that nydus networks allow to do which is real BS. teleporting mass queens, an incredibly pound-for-pound strong unit in the early game and eliminating their drawback of being slow af. allowing for swarm host hit and run, where even if the terran/protoss has his base covered, a zerg can nydus right outside and throw free units at enemy base
so while a protoss/terran player, with slower armies is busy trying to level the playing field by killing creep so that the zerg doesnt have complete reign over the map, the zerg army, which is already probably already running circles around the terran/protoss army, can teleport into the terran/protoss sim city for 50/50.
zerg logistics are just insane
|
On March 08 2019 14:53 Parcelleus wrote: Buffed Tanks (like never before), buffed marauders, bufffed widow mines, ridiculous economy with low worker count, buffed Bc's, buffed Thors.. as for terran whining... Just F*** Off ! but they didn't buff the freedom circle tho some things are not easy to replace and freedom is one of them
|
Although based on Katowice in isolation, the evidence is pretty damning I think we need to wait at least until the conclusion of GSL S1 before any huge changes are made. Furthermore, it would have to be a buff to terran rather than a protoss nerf as honestly, the state of PvZ has been almost as dire as TvP for a while now.
The problem is I don't know what you could do that would provide a solid enough buff without breaking both TvP and TvZ. Maybe a buff or new ability for the raven available in the late game? maybe the reduction of battlecruiser cost? I think the problem is Terran really lacks in this kind of tier 2.5 ground unit that could act as part of a backbone with the marine and Marauder. Maybe if the ghost were buffed it could fill out that role? Though it would require the ghost to be redesigned from the ground up.
|
On March 08 2019 12:08 Ben... wrote: Something needs to be done with nydus. It's too much. I've never seen Parting complain about balance on stream in a year of watching him but even he was saying that some of the ultra-fast nydus rushes with it are basically impossible to stop unless you know they are coming (which on long rush maps like Year Zero, you can't because your scouting adept can't scout it in time. He showed this in the replay on his stream). Lots of prominent pros and streamers are saying it's too much. Rotterdam was saying that the new nydus is a big factor in why he wasn't having as much fun with SC2 lately.
well...when someone in the balance team wondering how does it feel to get proxy BC'd as protoss but real BCs suck so they give zerg new "BC" instead
|
On March 09 2019 08:58 Z3nith wrote: Although based on Katowice in isolation, the evidence is pretty damning I think we need to wait at least until the conclusion of GSL S1 before any huge changes are made. Furthermore, it would have to be a buff to terran rather than a protoss nerf as honestly, the state of PvZ has been almost as dire as TvP for a while now.
The problem is I don't know what you could do that would provide a solid enough buff without breaking both TvP and TvZ. Maybe a buff or new ability for the raven available in the late game? maybe the reduction of battlecruiser cost? I think the problem is Terran really lacks in this kind of tier 2.5 ground unit that could act as part of a backbone with the marine and Marauder. Maybe if the ghost were buffed it could fill out that role? Though it would require the ghost to be redesigned from the ground up. i agree but one thing whatever they do to this game i don't want to watch the same damn TvP throughout 3 fucking GSLs like last year thier decisions in last year were ineffective and only promoted moar hideous terran's builds they need to hit harder,stronger make everything burnssssss
|
On March 09 2019 08:58 Z3nith wrote: Although based on Katowice in isolation, the evidence is pretty damning I think we need to wait at least until the conclusion of GSL S1 before any huge changes are made. Furthermore, it would have to be a buff to terran rather than a protoss nerf as honestly, the state of PvZ has been almost as dire as TvP for a while now.
The problem is I don't know what you could do that would provide a solid enough buff without breaking both TvP and TvZ. Maybe a buff or new ability for the raven available in the late game? maybe the reduction of battlecruiser cost? I think the problem is Terran really lacks in this kind of tier 2.5 ground unit that could act as part of a backbone with the marine and Marauder. Maybe if the ghost were buffed it could fill out that role? Though it would require the ghost to be redesigned from the ground up.
The reason you dont know what you could do fix your problem is because there is no problem. Terran does not need a buff, especially with regards to your idea of a "2.5" ground unit.
Terran already has ground units to augment the insane efficiency of bio. Tanks, Widow Mines, and even Thors. Battlecruisers and Ghosts already massacre Zerg, and you want to buff them without breaking TvZ? And the Raven, which is already one buff from being broken again? Interference matrix already shuts down any disruptor/collussus necessary to prevent gateway units from being melted by bio.
|
On March 09 2019 09:15 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 08:58 Z3nith wrote: Although based on Katowice in isolation, the evidence is pretty damning I think we need to wait at least until the conclusion of GSL S1 before any huge changes are made. Furthermore, it would have to be a buff to terran rather than a protoss nerf as honestly, the state of PvZ has been almost as dire as TvP for a while now.
The problem is I don't know what you could do that would provide a solid enough buff without breaking both TvP and TvZ. Maybe a buff or new ability for the raven available in the late game? maybe the reduction of battlecruiser cost? I think the problem is Terran really lacks in this kind of tier 2.5 ground unit that could act as part of a backbone with the marine and Marauder. Maybe if the ghost were buffed it could fill out that role? Though it would require the ghost to be redesigned from the ground up. The reason you dont know what you could do fix your problem is because there is no problem. Terran does not need a buff, especially with regards to your idea of a "2.5" ground unit. Terran already has ground units to augment the insane efficiency of bio. Tanks, Widow Mines, and even Thors. Battlecruisers and Ghosts already massacre Zerg, and you want to buff them without breaking TvZ? And the Raven, which is already one buff from being broken again? Interference matrix already shuts down any disruptor/collussus necessary to prevent gateway units from being melted by bio.
No I do think there is a problem, although admittedly it likely isn't as bad as many Terrans make it out to be. The entire basis of Terran strategy versus Protoss at the moment is the exact opposite of what the design team had in mind in regards to immediate game ending scenarios. It seems that most TvPs end in the mid-game when the Terran either rolls over the Protoss through a timing attack or the protoss defends said timing attack and just wins. If I could honestly say that I could see the possibility of Terran wanting to go into the late game versus Protoss then fair enough but the fact is that for the past year or so there have been a distinct lack of PvT games that make it past the midgame.
|
On March 09 2019 08:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2019 15:02 hiroshOne wrote: Warprism+mass chargelots is also insta win for Protoss if not scouted. And as i agree with nydus being ballshit right now, this argument is ballshit too.
They should nerf nydus little bit and bring back Overlord Drops at hatchery tech to keep some agressive options in early game for Zerg. If they only nerf nydus, Protoss will be back to this ballshit state, where thay can do whatever they want without even thinking about possibility of danger. not sure if serious first of all, the prism + chargelot argument doesnt even make sense. if prism + chargelot = instawin, then protoss wouldve dominated all the tournaments over the years. second of all, don't apply equal standards to all races. race asymmetry is the hallmark of starcraft. the protoss armies are slow and heavily reliant on death balls, ie the armies need a variety of units together to not get slaughtered. without warp prism, protoss would have zero ability to have some kind of sustained map presence (zerg has creep + fastest armies in the game, and terran has their entrenched positions) in the mid to late game. the mechanics are different as well. the nydus is the most powerful all-in tool in the game. a warp prism, as well as terran doom drop, can be scouted, repelled/killed easily and that's that. and they are only as strong as their cargo. Nydus only needs vision, which zerg has plenty of methods (overlord, overseer, changeling, speedling) to threaten moving an entire army into enemy base. Nydus worms are cheap and difficult to kill with no cool down of course there are the little things that nydus networks allow to do which is real BS. teleporting mass queens, an incredibly pound-for-pound strong unit in the early game and eliminating their drawback of being slow af. allowing for swarm host hit and run, where even if the terran/protoss has his base covered, a zerg can nydus right outside and throw free units at enemy base so while a protoss/terran player, with slower armies is busy trying to level the playing field by killing creep so that the zerg doesnt have complete reign over the map, the zerg army, which is already probably already running circles around the terran/protoss army, can teleport into the terran/protoss sim city for 50/50. zerg logistics are just insane Fastest nyndus build i know is hatch first, lair ASAP no speedling, 1 more gas, roach warren, nyndus and it comes at 4:30.
This build have existed since ever (here is a vod from 2015 that explains how to do it : www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUjLd0LPqfQ)...
The change on nyndus doesn't make it much stronger, actually before it was invincible and you couldn't prevent it to pop.
The scouting is easy, you send the shade of your adept on B1 to check and see the fast lair, aslo no B3 (or maybe a fake one), no speedling . And then like vs every two bases all-in you cut worker production and build emergency army.
The number of units you need to kill a nyndus have been posted on battle.net :
0.1 time reaction : https://docdro.id/wz6J3zH
5s time reaction (= 9s left to kill nyndus): https://docdro.id/qGPxs9N
10s time reaction : https://docdro.id/96SVCKx
No way this all-in works vs someone decent if scouted. The problem is you don't scout... Also you start whining here for that one time you need to learn to deal with a cheese from zerg, while zerg has to learn each season to defend the new P/T cheese :
Beginning of LOTV : proxy reapers everygame, adepts cheese each time, MSC core harass, then 2/1/1, oracles harass, PICA, archons drops etc...
Now recently we had the proxy canon immortal/shield batteries, we face archons drops every games, learn to face the BC with teleport, cyclons/hellions new style, and we still need to know how to counter the old shool cheeses. Recently, i've die on a proxy reaper as i was doing the fast three hatch before the first reaper arrive so i have late speedling.
You complain that each nyndus you kill only cost 50/50 ? I would love to make that trade, currently if i don't see the DT i'm dead, but if i perfectly react to it, Protoss just make archons, kill free stuff, and with pick up range he can't lose them. And sorry, if zerg is doing the nyndus all-in, he is all-in, it fails end of the game = victory for you. The BC/archons drops etc... are not all-in, we don't counter =defeat for us, we counter and the game just continue and we can still lose.
Here you seem like the the child too spoiled that start to complain at the first frustration while his other siblings were taught the hard way and suffered ten times more than that without complaining.
So pick the data we provide to you, learn to counter that BO, and stop acting it's imbalance when it's just a learn to play issue like us zerg need to face every seasons.
|
Well if you give one race HT/Distruptors/Archons/Colossuss/Tempest/Carrier and the other race Marine/Marauder/Medivac with Liberator/Ghost support it is not surprising that the Marine side try to end the game before late game.
Even though it is theoretically possible to play late game vs Protoss the mechanical requirements are so extremely high it is not feasible in practice.
I am not sure what the solution is. Maybe decrease Disruptor range and making HT 3 supply would help somewhat in the late game. Making Tempest less of hard counter to BCs would also help.
|
On March 09 2019 21:31 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2019 08:23 BerserkSword wrote:On March 08 2019 15:02 hiroshOne wrote: Warprism+mass chargelots is also insta win for Protoss if not scouted. And as i agree with nydus being ballshit right now, this argument is ballshit too.
They should nerf nydus little bit and bring back Overlord Drops at hatchery tech to keep some agressive options in early game for Zerg. If they only nerf nydus, Protoss will be back to this ballshit state, where thay can do whatever they want without even thinking about possibility of danger. not sure if serious first of all, the prism + chargelot argument doesnt even make sense. if prism + chargelot = instawin, then protoss wouldve dominated all the tournaments over the years. second of all, don't apply equal standards to all races. race asymmetry is the hallmark of starcraft. the protoss armies are slow and heavily reliant on death balls, ie the armies need a variety of units together to not get slaughtered. without warp prism, protoss would have zero ability to have some kind of sustained map presence (zerg has creep + fastest armies in the game, and terran has their entrenched positions) in the mid to late game. the mechanics are different as well. the nydus is the most powerful all-in tool in the game. a warp prism, as well as terran doom drop, can be scouted, repelled/killed easily and that's that. and they are only as strong as their cargo. Nydus only needs vision, which zerg has plenty of methods (overlord, overseer, changeling, speedling) to threaten moving an entire army into enemy base. Nydus worms are cheap and difficult to kill with no cool down of course there are the little things that nydus networks allow to do which is real BS. teleporting mass queens, an incredibly pound-for-pound strong unit in the early game and eliminating their drawback of being slow af. allowing for swarm host hit and run, where even if the terran/protoss has his base covered, a zerg can nydus right outside and throw free units at enemy base so while a protoss/terran player, with slower armies is busy trying to level the playing field by killing creep so that the zerg doesnt have complete reign over the map, the zerg army, which is already probably already running circles around the terran/protoss army, can teleport into the terran/protoss sim city for 50/50. zerg logistics are just insane Fastest nyndus build i know is hatch first, lair ASAP no speedling, 1 more gas, roach warren, nyndus and it comes at 4:30. This build have existed since ever (here is a vod from 2015 that explains how to do it : www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUjLd0LPqfQ)... The change on nyndus doesn't make it much stronger, actually before it was invincible and you couldn't prevent it to pop. The scouting is easy, you send the shade of your adept on B1 to check and see the fast lair, aslo no B3 (or maybe a fake one), no speedling . And then like vs every two bases all-in you cut worker production and build emergency army. The number of units you need to kill a nyndus have been posted on battle.net : 0.1 time reaction : https://docdro.id/wz6J3zH5s time reaction (= 9s left to kill nyndus): https://docdro.id/qGPxs9N10s time reaction : https://docdro.id/96SVCKxNo way this all-in works vs someone decent if scouted. The problem is you don't scout... Also you start whining here for that one time you need to learn to deal with a cheese from zerg, while zerg has to learn each season to defend the new P/T cheese : Beginning of LOTV : proxy reapers everygame, adepts cheese each time, MSC core harass, then 2/1/1, oracles harass, PICA, archons drops etc... Now recently we had the proxy canon immortal/shield batteries, we face archons drops every games, learn to face the BC with teleport, cyclons/hellions new style, and we still need to know how to counter the old shool cheeses. Recently, i've die on a proxy reaper as i was doing the fast three hatch before the first reaper arrive so i have late speedling. You complain that each nyndus you kill only cost 50/50 ? I would love to make that trade, currently if i don't see the DT i'm dead, but if i perfectly react to it, Protoss just make archons, kill free stuff, and with pick up range he can't lose them. And sorry, if zerg is doing the nyndus all-in, he is all-in, it fails end of the game = victory for you. The BC/archons drops etc... are not all-in, we don't counter =defeat for us, we counter and the game just continue and we can still lose. Here you seem like the the child too spoiled that start to complain at the first frustration while his other siblings were taught the hard way and suffered ten times more than that without complaining. So pick the data we provide to you, learn to counter that BO, and stop acting it's imbalance when it's just a learn to play issue like us zerg need to face every seasons. You're missing the point and your knowledge is out of date. Parting faced a nydus rush on stream that hit at 3:50 that featured 3-4 queens and mass zerglings off essentially one base (there was a second hatchery for production only). This rush has also appeared on several other prominent protoss streams. That timing is before warpgate is done, and on the map he was on, Year Zero, the rush distance was big enough that adepts would be unable to make it to the main to scout in time or would scout as the worm was already put down in the protoss base. Parting actually managed to kill the first nydus head after the queens and some of the zerglings had got out, but the problem is that the zerg started a second at his natural the instant the first one finished and it was more or less unstoppable since all Parting's units were tied up in the main trying to kill the all the units there. So he then proceeded to lose his entire natural mineral line with little in ways to defend.
The problem isn't the rush itself, it's that this rush is in the same category as the 1/1/1 was. If you prepare for it and it happens, you're fine, but if you prepare and it doesn't happen you are automatically behind and will likely lose. Not preparing for it amounts to a build order loss. It's the same reasoning they got rid of hatch tech drops last year. Those forced the opponent to play a certain way to defend them or else risk losing the game outright. The new nydus is exactly the same.
This rush is in some ways more powerful than the old invincible nydus rush in that the unload speed is so fast that the zerg is all but guaranteed to get multiple queens out and get a transfuse done while the zerglings exit fast enough to overwhelm the protoss, and since the exits are so cheap, zerg can throw down a second one far from the first and protoss basically can't defend both at once. The only way to hold it comfortably is to rush higher damage units like zealots, immortals, void rays, etc. and have perfect vision of your base at all times. This puts protoss behind if zerg does literally anything else than a nydus rush. If they scout protoss is preparing to defend nydus, they can just drone and then be massively ahead because protoss is spending all their gas to defend something that isn't going to happen.
The balance team's idea for using nydus in the mid and late game is cool, and quite like BW, but the changes they made to nydus made it slightly better for that intent, but were a big buff to rushes, which is exactly what they said they wanted to get away from. To fix this issue all they literally need to do is either make the heads take longer to pop so there is a better chance of the defender killing them, or make the nydus building itself take a bit longer to build. Defending this rush even 30 seconds later would be much more reasonable for the protoss player since they could have the units in time and not scouting it would be on them. But as it is right now, this rush hits when protoss has at most 2-3 gateway units and maybe an oracle and mass zerglings and a few queens can kill that small of an army with little trouble.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
You're missing the point and your knowledge is out of date. Parting faced a nydus rush on stream that hit at 3:50 that featured 3-4 queens and mass zerglings off essentially one base (there was a second hatchery for production only). This rush has also appeared on several other prominent protoss streams. That timing is before warpgate is done, and on the map he was on, Year Zero, the rush distance was big enough that adepts would be unable to make it to the main to scout in time or would scout as the worm was already put down in the protoss base. Parting actually managed to kill the first nydus head after the queens and some of the zerglings had got out, but the problem is that the zerg started a second at his natural the instant the first one finished and it was more or less unstoppable since all Parting's units were tied up in the main trying to kill the all the units there. So he then proceeded to lose his entire natural mineral line with little in ways to defend.
The problem isn't the rush itself, it's that this rush is in the same category as the 1/1/1 was. If you prepare for it and it happens, you're fine, but if you prepare and it doesn't happen you are automatically behind and will likely lose. Not preparing for it amounts to a build order loss. It's the same reasoning they got rid of hatch tech drops last year. Those forced the opponent to play a certain way to defend them or else risk losing the game outright. The new nydus is exactly the same.
My ZvP MMR is higher than PvZ despite playing protoss 10x more because of this opening - so many ways that P can play amount to a straight up build order loss but a tailored counter only gives each side a chance to win while putting P behind against some other plays.
It's so early in the game that a lot of scouting can't yet come into play, a common theme in ridiculous coinflip/all-in openings over the years.
The nydus buffs were also specifically focused on making it a nearly unstoppable force in the extremely early game which seems bizarre to me; changes like giving it a lot of armor before it comes out of the ground. That's far more relevant for building a nydus in somebodies face at 3:50 - so that they can't stop it despite having most of their units and a worker surround hitting the underground worm - than it is for any kind of midgame nydus play. Load/unload speed is good.
|
|
|
|