Improving PvZ Balance: Discussion Needed - Page 2
Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
nodule
Canada931 Posts
| ||
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On December 21 2009 04:58 old times sake wrote: A) Changes that effect the strength of Hydras or Hydra Breaks (shifting Zealot shields to HP; making Photon Cannons a medium unit; increasing Hydra build time slightly or decreasing Zealot build time slightly) B) Making Reaver a better option (improving Reaver AI; reducing or shifting cost of Reaver or Reaver tech) C) Making DA a better option (free or reduced spell research; reduced spell energy cost) D) Helping Storm become dangerous again (returning storm to 128 damage; faster Templar move rate) A) Hydras arent too strong, hydrabreaks rarely work, and if they do it's due to the element of surprise. Units good against Hydras: speedzealots, HTs, reavers, dragoons(in large numbers). You can play ZvP without any hydras, but you canot play it based just on them. Just check out the recent ZvP wins. Most of them are either decided by early lings, timed mutas, or superior defence+economy. B) Improving reaver AI a bit wont hurt i guess, it's just stupid when you A-move the reavers towards the sunkens, and the sunkens kill them even though the reaver should outrange them. C) No, DAs arent bad right now, if you reduce spell research time/cost mutas wont be an option at all anymore, you don't want to do that i guess. That unit is hard to implement correctly into the gameplay, but if you make it more accecable it becomes imba D) NOO, it took like 10 years for Zergs to counter effectievly the storms, and it still wins games for the toss. It's the best spell of the matchup and you want to make it better. WTF? | ||
sS.NuB
Angola107 Posts
On December 21 2009 05:30 EvoChamber wrote: PvZ is not imbalanced. ZvP sure is tho. Mutas are imbalanced too. | ||
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:47 exeprime wrote: Mutas have 3, archons have just 2. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Archon http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Mutalisk Yeah...my bad. I look at the Liquipedia stat sheet and saw Archon's attack modifier as its range -_- | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:48 nodule wrote: Waitaminnit... reavers were tweaked to have a longer firing delay when unloaded from a shuttle, but you're saying that the scarab ai was tweaked to hit less reliably too? Could you point me toward more info? If you find an interview with boxer about why he switched from protoss, it was because blizzard made reavers dumb. | ||
Traveler
United States451 Posts
God I can't tell you how I hate how slow templar are when I need them somewhere to be casting storm... | ||
exeprime
United Kingdom643 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:46 avilo wrote: I dunno if anyone here plays any of the recent cnc games, from cnc3tw, cnc3kw, or ra3, but balance was always heavily discussed on the forums, and I can tell you that especially at the start of ra3, so many soviet players complained that allies were imba and such when really... all the soviet player sucked. that's right, all of the "good" soviet players literally sucked at the game at top level. It just happened that most of the good players were allies players. It's a bit the same way here imo, a lot of the current top protoss progamers...are simply not at the level of the top Zergs. of course maps also factor into this as well, but Protoss is slacking in general. as Starcraft players, we are all very spoiled at just how damn balanced Starcraft really is. If you play other RTS like cnc/dow/aoe then you know this ![]() According to the law of large numbers, "the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed" Now, I haven't bothered to look up the exact race distribution of players, but I suspect it's somewhere close to 1/3 for each race. More so, considering that common lore says that "protoss ez race all noobs play it" => more players play toss so in a perfectly balanced environment it would make sense for more high level players to be toss. Regardless, let's start with the premise that race distribution at pro level is even. Due to the "large number" of progamers, again, in a perfectly balanced environment, the performances of all races should tend to be perfectly distributed. However, both Terran and Zerg have way more trophies than toss (t:20 gold, 11 silver, z: 17 gold, 21 silver, p: 12 gold, 16 silver (msl + osl)), Protoss is the only bonjwa-less race and has the fewest players in top40 by all-time elo peak (t - 15, z - 14, p - 11). These are results with a large sample size (lots of progamers) over a long period of time and it's still quite far away from the expected value. Therefore, it is safe and accurate to claim that the game isn't, in fact, perfectly balanced at top level, and that it's unlikely that the reason protoss doesn't do well is because they "slack off". If anything, the short period when the protoss were doing good is the anomaly that doesn't fit the pattern established over the years. | ||
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
No it's not. Let's look back only 9 or so months ago. What was that period called...iirc..."The Golden Age of Protoss"? "Reign of Protoss"? Something like that yes? Where protoss was destroying absolutely everything. When ZvP was frigging ridiculously hard for zergs. Oh yeah when it was I believe 4 protoss in semi-finals MSL. Oh yeah what happened there? I guess playing protoss wasn't imbalanced then. Just because there is a fluctuation in overall winning in the moment it does not mean the matchup is imbalanced. You can argue every mu is slightly imbalanced (notably TvP and ZvT). Funny thing is that ALL races have one matchup that people complain is imbalanced (if you aren't getting it: PvZ, TvP, and ZvT). So what is the point of discussing imbalance for one of these matchups? What is this going to prove? If you don't like the game then don't frigging play it (or switch races at least so you can complain about some other match-up). Blizzard ain't going to change this game anymore, not with sc2 coming up. Seriously, enough already. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 21 2009 07:40 resonance wrote: I'm so sick of hearing this imbalance thing. Zergs are doing well again and protoss are like "wtf man, this shit is imbalanced". No it's not. Let's look back only 9 or so months ago. What was that period called...iirc..."The Golden Age of Protoss"? "Reign of Protoss"? Something like that yes? Where protoss was destroying absolutely everything. When ZvP was frigging ridiculously hard for zergs. Oh yeah when it was I believe 4 protoss in semi-finals MSL. Oh yeah what happened there? I guess playing protoss wasn't imbalanced then. Just because there is a fluctuation in overall winning in the moment it does not mean the matchup is imbalanced. You can argue every mu is slightly imbalanced (notably TvP and ZvT). Funny thing is that ALL races have one matchup that people complain is imbalanced (if you aren't getting it: PvZ, TvP, and ZvT). So what is the point of discussing imbalance for one of these matchups? What is this going to prove? If you don't like the game then don't frigging play it (or switch races at least so you can complain about some other match-up). Blizzard ain't going to change this game anymore, not with sc2 coming up. Seriously, enough already. Only a few protoss players actually did well during the golden age of protoss. Right now ALL zergs are doing well. PvZ was still overall balanced during that time. | ||
old times sake
165 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On December 21 2009 05:21 Attritive wrote: "It's so funny watching the level of posting deteriorate so rapidly..." For instance: "Helping Storm become dangerous again..." ![]() On December 21 2009 05:25 Mortician wrote: Just buff Protoss players, nothing more needed On December 21 2009 05:27 Chaos- wrote: Why don't the protoss players just practice more? On December 21 2009 05:30 EvoChamber wrote: PvZ is not imbalanced. On December 21 2009 05:33 Misrah wrote: Protoss players cry too much. Stop it. PvZ is not imbalanced On December 21 2009 06:36 avilo wrote: This is the strategy forum, not the forum to advertise your own personal balance changes that not only are bad in the first place and coming from probably a D- iccup player with no idea of balance, but will never happen. You point out balance changes and then do not even bother to theorycraft how intensely they'd affect the match-up or build orders or other areas of the game. This game is 10 years old, the only balance changes anyone are ever going to agree with you or theorycraft with you on are minor ones you mentioned like nrg changes to the DA. All the other ones are already balanced and tested in the last 10 years of gaming... Blizzard already messed around with zealot/dragoon shields/HP, as well as storm damage and the others you mentioned. you know storm damage was changed so that you can't just 1 shot lurkers with a storm otherwise no obs were needed... oh, and finally, PvZ is not imbalanced. Your post is seeming to make a complete definitive statement that it is, when it currently is not. On December 21 2009 06:46 avilo wrote: I dunno if anyone here plays any of the recent cnc games, from cnc3tw, cnc3kw, or ra3, but balance was always heavily discussed on the forums, and I can tell you that especially at the start of ra3, so many soviet players complained that allies were imba and such when really... all the soviet player sucked. that's right, all of the "good" soviet players literally sucked at the game at top level. It just happened that most of the good players were allies players. It's a bit the same way here imo, a lot of the current top protoss progamers...are simply not at the level of the top Zergs. of course maps also factor into this as well, but Protoss is slacking in general. as Starcraft players, we are all very spoiled at just how damn balanced Starcraft really is. If you play other RTS like cnc/dow/aoe then you know this ![]() On December 21 2009 07:40 resonance wrote: I'm so sick of hearing this imbalance thing. Zergs are doing well again and protoss are like "wtf man, this shit is imbalanced". No it's not. Let's look back only 9 or so months ago. What was that period called...iirc..."The Golden Age of Protoss"? "Reign of Protoss"? Something like that yes? Where protoss was destroying absolutely everything. When ZvP was frigging ridiculously hard for zergs. Oh yeah when it was I believe 4 protoss in semi-finals MSL. Oh yeah what happened there? I guess playing protoss wasn't imbalanced then. Just because there is a fluctuation in overall winning in the moment it does not mean the matchup is imbalanced. You can argue every mu is slightly imbalanced (notably TvP and ZvT). Funny thing is that ALL races have one matchup that people complain is imbalanced (if you aren't getting it: PvZ, TvP, and ZvT). So what is the point of discussing imbalance for one of these matchups? What is this going to prove? If you don't like the game then don't frigging play it (or switch races at least so you can complain about some other match-up). Blizzard ain't going to change this game anymore, not with sc2 coming up. Seriously, enough already. no thx make a thread if you want to debate this--oh wait there already is one, linked in OP. ![]() edit: more people trying to start flamewars: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2009 08:09 Camlito wrote: "I'm so sick of these responses saying that i'm making a false thread! I put so much work into a thread that probably has a false meaning! Please mods let only people who are dellusional post aswell!" On December 21 2009 08:22 ProoM wrote: Reduce cannon's healt, reduce storm's damage, increase the hydra range, increase hydras "natural" carapace, increase mutas "natural" carapace, decrease archons damage, decrease goon range... many ways of balancing up the PvZ. On December 21 2009 08:22 FoBuLouS wrote: oh my god please i'm a protoss player and PvZ is not imbalanced. Starcraft is damn well balanced. On December 21 2009 09:20 Athos wrote: No, this thread is pointless because PvZ is balanced. On December 21 2009 10:00 aznanimedude wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2009 04:58 old times sake wrote: zulu_nation suggested I make a new thread for this. This post grew out of a 46-page thread on PvZ imbalance. --> Please go there if you want to argue about this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102568¤tpage=46 PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE HERE ABOUT WHETHER PVZ IS BALANCED. <-- I want this thread to be for the following problems only, and you can participate in the first part even if you feel there's no imbalance. Please focus on improving our answers to the following 2 problems by critiquing answers given and offering your own improved or new versions: Problem I. What types of changes primarily effect the PvZ matchup and not so much PvT or TvZ? This is a list of all options; I am not proposing all of these be done together. Some canidates include: A) Changes that effect the strength of Hydras or Hydra Breaks (shifting Zealot shields to HP; making Photon Cannons a medium unit; increasing Hydra build time slightly or decreasing Zealot build time slightly) nodule says modifying Zeals or Hydras will effect other matchups too much; also he says mucking with cannons is dangerous because they effect too much of PvZ start to finish. Geo.Rion says Hydras aren't too strong, so don't weaken them. B) Making Reaver a better option (improving Reaver AI; reducing or shifting cost of Reaver or Reaver tech) nodule supports improving the AI, says Terrans should just deal with it Sadist says we need to get more specific i.e. Reavers never missing would be way too good Geo.Rion is okay with fixing Reaver AI i.e. shoot sunkens from far away not walk into sunken range on attack move C) Making DA a better option (free or reduced spell research; reduced spell energy cost) nodule likes this, says it is very PvZ specific so a good avenue, suggesting that Queens, Ghosts, and DA's all get a boost simultaneously Geo.Rion says DA's are already good and any increase to DA will make mutas useless Whiplash suggests making Maelstorm cost 75 energy Kazius says changing DA's starting energy should be enough. Maybe it could be a higher percentage of his max energy than other units, that way energy upgrade becomes useful as well? shikushiku suggests DA start with mael so that the Toss push can come sooner D) Helping Storm E) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1 F) Improve Corsairs (nodule suggests this, since it is specific to PvZ, saying reducing cost and/or build time can help Protoss get information sooner) G) Improve Observers (nodule says we can consider making Observers die to two scourge instead of one, although it does have PvT implications) H) Improve Scouts (Whiplash says to let them start with speed upgrade and have lower build time I) Increase collision size of some of Protoss's buildings to help Protoss SimCity make Ling runby's less effective (suggested by d3_crescentia) Red = people bashed it Blue = additions thanks to others' Green = people liked it I hope that some of these will be ruled out, and that others can be added, but the more complete this list is, the better we can work on Problem II. What should be added to this list? What details should be added to these generalities? What options are horrible and should be striken? Problem II. What specific set of the changes, that answer "Problem I", do you propose we adopt to improve the PvZ matchup? Keep in mind that clearly some maps will become imba as a result, but overall, the goal is to make more maps higher quality for this matchup without adversely effecting other matchups. Which options do you hold off the table, and why? Which options do you want on the table, and why? Finally, which set of options, together, do you feel is the right fit? Those are the questions, and the rest of this post will be an example--my own reply to these Problems, to give you a better idea of what the questions mean: + Show Spoiler + The first type of response would be to review a group of changes, saying what you like and don't like: For example, in my case, (regarding I.A) I really don't want Hydras to become weaker. I like them as-is for not only ZvP, but ZvT, and ZvZ. So I favor putting Zealot build time down by 4 or so, as opposed to making Hydras worse in this regard. Photons becoming a medium unit means things like Zealots, Lings, Marines remain the same to them, while explosive units like Mutas, Tanks, Goons, Hydras would do less damage to the HP part of them--and Vultures (concussive) would kill them more easily. Similarly, shifting Zealot shields to HP makes Zealots stronger in all of these cases as well. Would PvT be ruined as a result? If not, it seems like a good change if what you want to do is make those kinds of fights shift slightly. That's how I feel about point A of Problem I. A second kind of post would say which points you feel are the best kind to look at, and again giving details on what you think will work and why: But I actually like points B, C, and D more than A. A is subtle and dangerous, whereas I'm more confident that DA's, especially Maelstrom, pretty much are not going to break other matchups even if raised to the point where they effect PvZ earlier and more substantially. And I think like this: A DA is really like two casters because it's two units, and gaswise it's like 1.25 High Templar. Why, then, not make it able to cast spells 25% more often, at least? In other words, cut it's spell energy costs to about 75% of what they were, rounding to Blizzard-style multiples-of-fives type numbers: Mind Control for 110; Feedback for 35; Maelstrom for 75. When Blizzard made Mind Control they were way too scared of it being "awesome." Clearly, it is anything but. I might favor moving it down to something like 75. On the other hand, Feedback might already be fine at 50, and I don't really like a caster that simply makes other casters useless (kind of how I don't like Restoration making Parasite useless). My second favorite is point D because it doesn't scare me much as far as ruining other matchups. Faster Templar movement (still slower than the Protoss army, but able to walk up to you and storm without being as obvious going to clearly die for it) and de-nerfing Storm seem like no-brainers. I also would like Reaver to be more of an option for pros, who I feel avoid it because it has been overly nerfed and has a horrible, unreliable AI. But I tread carefully here because if the Reaver is made too strong it will be horrible for PvT. If I knew PvT better I might dare to suggest Reavers coming out a little earlier (by being cheaper or having tech cheaper, for instance). But instead, I say, just improve their AI a little so scarabs are reliable and controlable, and leave the rest the same. Those first two kinds of replies seek to improve the answers to Problem I and lay the groundwork for answering Problem II. A third type of response would be to flat out state what your bet is for answering Problem II. So I would go with DA spell reduction, the Templar movement and Storm de-nerf, the Zealot shift and Photon mediumize, and a weak Reaver AI fix. Then others would come back and say how this set is too strong and would ruin the matchup, etc. Finally, if I had more ideas for things that effect PvZ without hurting other matchups, I would include them here. and then PvZ is changed so Protoss stop crying and get to win again and then zerg will say ZvP is too imba, are we allowed to double the range of mutalisks and give zerg shields to counteract, they make em move faster and do more damage and stuff? and give the defiler another spell? are we allowed to complain then? and make a thread about how ZvP is too imba now? On December 21 2009 10:18 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Whoa man I am a protoss player and I can tell you that for sure the game is imbalanced because I am useing statistics and over long periods of time lots of people have proven beyond any measure of doubt that without changes to the game it is impossible to fix the disadvantage that protoss is at in the matchup of protoss versus zerg for example the nexus costs 400 minerals but the hatchery only costs 300 what is that??? and on top of that they get TWO zerglings for 50 minerals but protoss only gets ONE zealot for 100, how can we balance this? I suggest making zealots cost 100 but spawning two of them so its even you know because that will fix the zerg's built in macro advantage and then we need to make other units better too like the high templar because storm is useless unless your Bisu. DONT MAKE ANY POSTS SAYING THAT IM WRONG because im not there are already other threads saying that im wrong so if you think im wrong go post in those instead ok because I am not wrong pvz is imbalanced as evidenced by the 55% of the time that zerg win on maps played by pros ok? red=stupid bitching blue=dumb ideas green=statistical fallacy On December 21 2009 10:35 saltywet wrote: at d levels, a protoss always wins over terrans and zerg. whats your point? On December 21 2009 10:48 Leath wrote: I second that. There is no discussion as pointless as race balance in Starcraft. I am a Protoss player, and I never felt ZvP was unfair for Protoss. Of course, sometimes I will lose to an inferior Zerg player, but most of the games I lose vs Zergs were not because of the race but because of the opponent was the better player. Perhaps, historically protoss havent dominated the pro scene, and maybe we are the inferior race. Right now, there are 12 Terrans, 11 Zergs, 7 Protoss in the KeSPA ranking. Nonetheless, even if Protoss is the weakest race, it is not by much, or not considerably much. Nothing really prevents Protoss from winning, or dominating a series. There are no bullet proof ways to consistently beat a Protoss opponent. So why is there to complain about? I am sure most people complaining are just really bad players who got owned by some all in cheese, like 3 hatch hydras vs FE. But no matter what happened, you can always counter any Zerg build. What is the real problem finally? What makes PvZ so imbalanced to you? If any change was to be made, in my useless and pointless opinion would be in scout unit. It should have it's speed upgrade researched by default. Useless, but nothing would be done anyway, and it would be almost impossible to improve protoss vs Z, without making PvT even easier. 17 people who try to ruin this thread and change the subject while baiting/flaming/sarcasm/etc. When the OP specifically shows you that this thread isn't for that and another one, linked, already is... | ||
Camlito
Australia4040 Posts
| ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
What bisu did was discover a different approach which swung the pendulum out of it's resting place temporarily. Now that Zergs have had enough practice, the imbalance may get worse than it ever was. Also, there are many idiots here who think balance is some holy thing that shouldn't be questioned. StarCraft is far from perfect. The only reason it's still interesting is because the maps change so often that the players have to adapt constantly which again puts skill at the 1st place of importance. Unless God himself designed StarCraft, what are the odds that you make a perfectly balanced game? I'll consider the example of Distruption Web. I'll assume it lasted 60 seconds originally, and now it lasts let's say 30. What happened here? It was obvious 60 seconds is too much.. so blizzard went for 30. Tested it some(keep in mind that none of those testers had the skill to keep a solid D rank on today's ICC), said "yep, this looks 'bout right". A real balanced duration would probably be something like 36,56 seconds, it wouldn't be a neat number. Just like most numbers wouldn't be all nice and round in a perfect game. But Blizzard kept them round to keep the game less complicated. To all of those who do it, balance is not something you need to defend. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To answer the OP: As much as I claim that the balance is not perfect, I still think it's not too far away from extremely good. What I mean to say is, changing a single thing like making Maelstrom cost 0 gas would probably change things ALOT. But I can't see Blizzard doing anything about it. | ||
arb
Noobville17920 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:48 nodule wrote: Waitaminnit... reavers were tweaked to have a longer firing delay when unloaded from a shuttle, but you're saying that the scarab ai was tweaked to hit less reliably too? Could you point me toward more info? Let's put it this way. If they didnt make AI worse ![]() | ||
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
I'd say that changing the DA's starting energy should be enough, since the thing that causes the most problems is the HT sniping which allows mass hydras to destroy any P army when one base up (which is unavoidable in ZvP, and always was). But that's not the answer. It's like buffing the Queen to make ZvT easier, or the Ghost to make TvP better... These units add a very high requirement to multitasking and micromanagement which is not the way to fix a fundamental problem - using these units well would give even the best headaches. The current tactic of building a load of hydras, then building 9 mutas and sniping all the HTs (even at the cost of suiciding the mutas) has turned this imbalance much much worse - either a very fast DA (which is a hit on the econ & storm timing), reaver based strats (which usually allow for an even larger econ edge for Z), cheese, or top-tier micro and unit positioning are necessary. While on the other hand it seems that any Z, no matter how terrible, stands a chance against any P. I'd say the Archon and Corsair are the key units to improve, since that will not have an effect on other MUs. | ||
ProoM
Lithuania1741 Posts
| ||
FoBuLouS
United States570 Posts
| ||
Whiplash
United States2928 Posts
| ||
ProoM
Lithuania1741 Posts
On December 21 2009 08:26 Whiplash wrote: I say make malestorm only cost 75 energy, scouts come with speed upgrade and take a tiny bit less time to build, and give archons +1 range. what about taking out DA out of the game and reducing archons range by 1? that would balance it out. On December 21 2009 08:22 FoBuLouS wrote: oh my god please i'm a protoss player and PvZ is not imbalanced. Starcraft is damn well balanced. lucky you, ZvP is damn hard >.> | ||
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
| ||
shikushiku
Australia41 Posts
maybe da should start off with mael, then the p push can come earlier | ||
| ||