|
thread cancelled. impossible to have this discussion here apparently.
I made this thread so that people could discuss what the best options would be for adjusting balance towards P over Z, without breaking anything. It was meant to be a separate discussion from whether PvZ is imba, which already exists in another thread, which I linked. I tried to say this, I tried to direct people to that. But they just kept on coming here and discussing that and insulting everybody...
So, no point. Trolls/flamers win, destroy this thread, don't let us have this discussion because you disagree with us. :/
|
"It's so funny watching the level of posting deteriorate so rapidly..."
For instance: "Helping Storm become dangerous again..."
|
Just buff Protoss players, nothing more needed
|
Why don't the protoss players just practice more?
|
Give archons double range (4). Won't affect PvT almost at all, and even in PvZ the only really serious impact it would probably have would be making it much much more dangerous vs. stacked muta, which are the thing "breaking" the match-up right now.
edit: on secound thought 4 might be a bit more, maybe 3?
|
|
|
Protoss players cry too much. Stop it. PvZ is not imbalanced
|
If you want to change PvZ balance only, it stands to reason to only change units which are not frequently used in any other matchup. So tweaking things like zealots, hydras and mutas should be eliminated immediately. Storm is used all the time to devastating effect in PvT and PvP too, so I'd hesitate to change it.
So where does that leave us:
boost DA: this is definitely the most promising avenue, since it is hard to imagine the unit being used in other matchups frequently and has the potential for more interesting games. Tons of possible options here, like increase starting energy, come with maelstrom researched by default, reduce energy requires for maelstrom, increase duration of maelstrom, etc. It would be really cool to see a boost to queens, DAs, and ghosts simultaneously so that every race gets something.
boost corsair: only used in PvZ, so it is also a good candidate. you could reduce cost and/or build time, to get scouting info sooner.
boost obs: making observers take 2 scourge to kill instead of 1 would significantly affect the matchup. Has PvT implications, I admit.
reaver AI: if this can be fixed, good. terrans will have to deal with it.
Mucking with cannons is dangerous, since they are used at all stages of the game in PvZ, and you run the danger of making them too powerful for expo defense later on in the game. It sounds to me like you're proposing trying all those changes at once, too, which seems like a bad idea
|
can't you guys just take the premise of the post and have some fun? I don't necessarily think that PvZ is imbalanced, but as the OP said, that isn't the point of this thread.
|
|
|
Reaver ai was originally way better. They changed it after players got really good with shuttle micro. High templar moving faster would probably be the only real change that you could make. (HT movement speed has no effect on pvt thanks to shuttles, and would almost never matter in pvp).
Storm's nerf is pretty fine, but it feels like the Zerg players don't really understand what the difference is, it's not particularly harder to dodge, but it kills lurkers in one storm instead of 2 (doing 13 more DOT is not going to matter to hydralisks).
Dark archons do have one change that should happen though, currently the +50 energy upgrade has no real effect on them because it doesn't increase their initial starting energy to 62.5 from 50, it's still 50 and they are the only unit that's like that.
Oh, and I thought archons already had 3 range? I know that it's only one less than the mutalisk. Anyways, archons difficulty with mutas is not because of their range really, it's more because they're very large and can't move in an army or base very well. Giving them 4 range would just make it impossible to micro against them but wouldn't really help with muta sniping.
Pvz is definitely imbalanced at the pro level and has been since at least may/june. It's probably due to maps though, not inherent game balances.
|
On December 21 2009 05:50 nodule wrote:
If you want to change PvZ balance only, it stands to reason to only change units which are not frequently used in any other matchup. So tweaking things like zealots, hydras and mutas should be eliminated immediately. Storm is used all the time to devastating effect in PvT and PvP too, so I'd hesitate to change it.
So where does that leave us:
boost DA: this is definitely the most promising avenue, since it is hard to imagine the unit being used in other matchups frequently and has the potential for more interesting games. Tons of possible options here, like increase starting energy, come with maelstrom researched by default, reduce energy requires for maelstrom, increase duration of maelstrom, etc. It would be really cool to see a boost to queens, DAs, and ghosts simultaneously so that every race gets something.
boost corsair: only used in PvZ, so it is also a good candidate. you could reduce cost and/or build time, to get scouting info sooner.
boost obs: making observers take 2 scourge to kill instead of 1 would significantly affect the matchup. Has PvT implications, I admit.
reaver AI: if this can be fixed, good. terrans will have to deal with it.
Mucking with cannons is dangerous, since they are used at all stages of the game in PvZ, and you run the danger of making them too powerful for expo defense later on in the game. It sounds to me like you're proposing trying all those changes at once, too, which seems like a bad idea
if reaver AI is fixed youll have to elaborate on that. For example if it never missed reaver would be retardedly imbalanced in all mu's, PvP would be brutal
|
Reavers should like never misses if its short ranged but it should lose damage that it can do as the bulb flies out. Like for each range, it loses a certain percentage or something.
|
On December 21 2009 05:30 EvoChamber wrote:
PvZ is not imbalanced.
TRUE
|
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.
|
16962 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:17 Xiphos wrote:
Reavers should like never misses if its short ranged but it should lose damage that it can do as the bulb flies out. Like for each range, it loses a certain percentage or something.
Are you kidding? :/
|
scouts with the upgs researched by default
/thread
|
Wait...I thought both Archons and Mutalisks had 3 range...
|
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 
|
|
|
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?
|
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?
|
On December 21 2009 05:30 EvoChamber wrote:
PvZ is not imbalanced.
ZvP sure is tho.
Mutas are imbalanced too.
|
Yeah...my bad. I look at the Liquipedia stat sheet and saw Archon's attack modifier as its range -_-
|
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.
|
I think if you simply make Templar faster... like around the speed required to keep up with other toss stuff, it solves the templar sniping and makes them slightly better versus hydras. Its an easy change that doesn't too drastically change anything, just makes it harder to pick them off with mutas and makes them get there to storm a little earlier.
God I can't tell you how I hate how slow templar are when I need them somewhere to be casting storm...
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
12 of the 28 responses are talking about whether PvZ is balanced or not. Mods can you remove these posts? This thread isn't for that and I specifically asked for them to take it elsewhere, even offering a link. I put a lot of effort into OP so this wouldn't happen... They are going to cause flamewars and derail the good contributions of the other 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 06:28 MaGic~PhiL wrote:TRUE 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 06:52 sS.NuB wrote:ZvP sure is tho. Mutas are imbalanced too. 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 moveC) 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 soonerD) Helping Storm become dangerous again (returning storm to 128 damage; faster Templar move rate) Maybe it is dangerous enough already?. nodule says changes to storm will hurt PvT too much maybe Nevuk says making Templar move faster is "really the only change you could make Geo.Rion says it took 10 years for Zerg to be able to counter storms and it still wins games now Traveler likes faster HT to resist sniping a bitE) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1F) 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 timeI) 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 itBlue = additions thanks to others'Green = people liked itI 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 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 08:55 SuperJongMan wrote:
This thread is one of the most disgusting threads I've seen in forever. 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...
|
"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!"
|
ZvP is imbalanced, always was.
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.
|
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  BoxeR would be a protoss player.
|
If ZvP was never imbalanced, then it is impossible to explain the 55% (59% recently) win rate of Zerg players against Protoss (a much more extreme imbalance than TvZ or PvT). In big enough numbers you can't say that all times the better players just happen to play Zerg. Numbers don't work that way. So if you argue with the fact that the MU is imbalanced, stop. There are concrete facts that shut down your argument. The fact that the "Golden Age of Protoss" happened was due to the fact that Zerg players hadn't adjusted to the then new, relatively APM heavy Protoss builds by the top tier players. And even then, it was the six dragons and a load of scrubs.
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.
|
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.
|
oh my god please i'm a protoss player and PvZ is not imbalanced. Starcraft is damn well balanced.
|
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.
|
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 >.>
|
I disagree with the premise of this thread. That being said, one potential solution that probably wouldn't affect any other matchup would be to slightly increase the collision size of particular Protoss buildings (forge, etc.) so that protoss simcity is easier to defend against ling runbys.
|
archons are already good, coz muta need to be microed not to be hit
maybe da should start off with mael, then the p push can come earlier
|
This isn't exactly related, but I remember when Zerg players were whining about how hard ZvP was just a few months ago. Now it's the other way around again. Like so many people have said, it's just the maps imo
|
This thread is one of the most disgusting threads I've seen in forever.
|
Well I have no problem with a number of users getting 1week ban for lame responses. There has been some concern with how poor the strat forum was I the past, but ultimately nothing was done about it.
Problem with balance threads is emotion runs high, and having anything meaningful to say about balance is rather difficult.
Ultimately for structural balance we would want to use mathematical comparison. Consider: 2 goon costs 250/100. Reaver happens to cost 250/100 with 4scarabs. Damange and rate of fire is such that when you have 1reaver vs 2 spread goon you get a double KO and scarabs have run out. This is straight up attack equilibrium. Sure, reaver has splash, but it also costs tech to be able to even make, and they need shuttle to be mobile. The tradeoffs make sense. This is why if in pvp if you should just stay goon or also go reaver is a completely valid option either way.
Thing is, there is none of this deep equilibrium analysis going on in pvz imbalance threads. Without that it is just words, words, words.
We have win statistics, and probability shows us that it is highly likely there are pretty consistent structural race-map issues in pvz.
Now, I showed how two units in the same race balance to each other. Trying to do this type of equilibrium analysis between races, their tech, economic structures, and so on is way beyond me, but perhaps someone out there has an idea.
As to this thread:
SC2 is almost here. You are not ever going to see a patch that makes structural changes to races at this point, as much as people can even agree on something like buffing scout. So while throwing ideas around about structural changes can be interesting and worthy of a thread, it's not going to happen. You will see some new maps however. So starting a topic about map conditions, rather than what can be done to the races themselves is more pragmatic.
|
Maps will keep changing, and that's an option, but one for another thread. This is a thread for coming up with our best effort towards these kinds of changes for this matchup, however you feel about the task...
I don't agree that it is futile. People always say Blizzard will never do it. But they have done it in the past. In fact, I think Blizzard tends to give StarCraft more attention when they are pushing a new related product (it happened prior to BW's launch, prior to War2BNE, prior to War3, prior to War3x, etc. They suck up to us when they are about to sell something. It's not like they have a track record of ignoring SC for a long time either.
hey changed storm long after everybody said they would never change SC again, and I'm sure there are more examples.) Anyways maybe we should debate whether Blizzard will consider structural changes somewhere else, because allowing this kind of thing seems to also suggest we should debate whether the matchup is imba at all, which again the thread clearly is not.
This thread is about clarifying what the best PvZ changes might be, in case anybody ever needs them. Call it "for fun" if you want... if you think it's pointless then let us be mistaken, or make a thread about how it's pointless if you want... isn't this thread derailed enough without us trying to defend whether the thread is pointless?
|
On December 21 2009 08:19 arb wrote:Show nested quote +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 BoxeR would be a protoss player.
oh my god 0_0 i could not even imagine half the new shit and ways to revolutionize protoss gameplay!!!!!!!!!
can you imagine protoss being played by the emperor...
so how retarded did blizzard make the reaver ai to disappoint boxer? how smart was it before?
|
No, this thread is pointless because PvZ is balanced.
|
On December 21 2009 09:20 Athos wrote:
No, this thread is pointless because PvZ is balanced.
Didn't we already go over this?
In the thread this spawned from we showed that we had a crazy Z score for testing if PvZ was balanced, meaning that we had a really low chance of that actually being true.
The sample size is so huge throughout the history of Starcraft that it makes the chance of the 55% win rate of zergs over protoss extremely significant.
This is not 10 games on Iccup to see which race is better, this is thousands of games between the best players in the world...
Anyways that brief period of Protoss success is what stops PvZ win ratio from being over 60% in favor of zerg, but because that period was so Protoss favored people argue that PvZ is balanced.
Anyways, don't take an opinion over math. It was proved at a significance level over 99% that PvZ is imbalanced.
|
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
Lol hi Avilo. Go 1v1?
|
+ 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 moveC) 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 soonerD) Helping Storm become dangerous again (returning storm to 128 damage; faster Templar move rate) Maybe it is dangerous enough already?. nodule says changes to storm will hurt PvT too much maybe Nevuk says making Templar move faster is "really the only change you could make Geo.Rion says it took 10 years for Zerg to be able to counter storms and it still wins games now Traveler likes faster HT to resist sniping a bitE) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1F) 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 timeI) 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 itBlue = additions thanks to others'Green = people liked itI 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?
|
Just make DTs invisible, even to detectors. That should even things up, eh?
|
Archon range upgrade? +1?
|
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 moveC) 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 soonerD) Helping Storm become dangerous again (returning storm to 128 damage; faster Templar move rate) Maybe it is dangerous enough already?. nodule says changes to storm will hurt PvT too much maybe Nevuk says making Templar move faster is "really the only change you could make Geo.Rion says it took 10 years for Zerg to be able to counter storms and it still wins games now Traveler likes faster HT to resist sniping a bitE) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1F) 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 timeI) 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 itBlue = additions thanks to others'Green = people liked itI 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?
Completely agree with this. Starcraft is so deep that instead of complaining about imbalance you always have room to get better yourself. By making game-play changes you're not only fucking up the balance for other matchups, but you're not allowing the metagame to expand. It's no secret that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS of all time and here you are ready and willing to screw all that up over a lousy 5%. Completely ridiculous.
|
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 moveC) 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 soonerD) Helping Storm become dangerous again (returning storm to 128 damage; faster Templar move rate) Maybe it is dangerous enough already?. nodule says changes to storm will hurt PvT too much maybe Nevuk says making Templar move faster is "really the only change you could make Geo.Rion says it took 10 years for Zerg to be able to counter storms and it still wins games now Traveler likes faster HT to resist sniping a bitE) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1F) 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 timeI) 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 itBlue = additions thanks to others'Green = people liked itI 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?
Yeah, you should. It will help you get banned faster, so go for it.
|
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 10:18 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
This.
And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced.
|
at d levels, a protoss always wins over terrans and zerg. whats your point?
|
On December 21 2009 10:35 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +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 This. And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced.
This isn't a PvZ imba thread. Read it again. ...
|
On December 21 2009 10:41 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 10:35 writer22816 wrote: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 This. And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced. This isn't a PvZ imba thread. Read it again. ...
The name of the thread is "improving PvZ Balance" and you're saying it's not a PvZ imba thread, Seriously this thread is such ajoke.
|
you do realize that you are contributing to your "stupid bitching" right?? >>zerg_russian
seriously can you guys not respect the op...he asked you guys to go flame somewhere else not here.
he wants honest to god input from ppl who AGREE on his view (which is a considerable amount). dont be a jackass and try to hijack it. either illiteracy is really high on TL or there are a lot of ignorant jackasses here...
anywhooo....
the only change i can see happening is the DA. it is generally seen not used in all around game play.
Now if they made it more efficient like more energy or less energy usage/less penalty then i think DA will be considered more. DA has some nice spells that can be used but like i said the input is just too much.
|
On December 21 2009 10:43 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 10:41 old times sake wrote:On December 21 2009 10:35 writer22816 wrote: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 This. And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced. This isn't a PvZ imba thread. Read it again. ... The name of the thread is "improving PvZ Balance" and you're saying it's not a PvZ imba thread, Seriously this thread is such ajoke.
If you don't think PvZ balance can be improved then why are you posting in this thread? I offer another thread where people debate this fact and specifically define this thread as having a different purpose precisely because there's already a thread for debating whether PvZ balance can be improved. If I was able obviously I would rename this thread, but then again the length limit kept me from doing this already; I thought explanation in the OP would suffice but instead you want to pile on the attempts at starting a flamewar in the wrong thread on the basis of your interpretation of the title of the thread (despite the text of it!).
|
On December 21 2009 08:55 SuperJongMan wrote:
This thread is one of the most disgusting threads I've seen in forever.
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.
|
oh and what's with all these new protoss players popping out of nowhere whining about PvZ imba
if anyone wants to argue statistics, I took the ZvP samples from all the maps of the current season (fighting spirit, match point, neo moon glaive, neo HBR, neo tornado, outsider SE, odd-eye, ultimatum, el nino, eye of the storm, HBR, moon glaive, tornado and outsider) and added them up.
ZvP
11-9 on FS
9-8 on match point
1-1 on neo moon glaive
3-4 on neo HBR
0-0 on neo tornado
9-8 on outsider SE
0-2 on odd-eye
1-2 on ultimatum
7-2 on el nino (imba map)
5-6 on eye of the storm
35-32 on HBR
2-1 on moon glaive
4-0 on tornado (possibly imba)
13-11 on outsider
TOTAL: 100-86 (53.76%)
If we disregard El Nino which is obviously imbalanced we get 93-84 which is 52.54%. Disregard tornado as well it's 89-84 or 51.45%.
Those stats look pretty damn balanced to me, unless some idiot like Traveler or old times sake think that's incredibly imba?
|
Perhaps, historically protoss havent dominated the pro scene...
...umm im pretty sure zerg and terrans were historically dominating ones if i'm not wrong??
|
On December 21 2009 10:52 heroyi wrote:...umm im pretty sure zerg and terrans were historically dominating ones if im not wrong??
That's exactly what he said?
|
On December 21 2009 10:54 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 10:52 heroyi wrote:
Perhaps, historically protoss havent dominated the pro scene...
...umm im pretty sure zerg and terrans were historically dominating ones if im not wrong?? That's exactly what he said?
whoops my bad, have"nt" didnt register
|
On December 21 2009 06:41 xMiragex wrote:
scouts with the upgs researched by default
/thread
this.
|
On December 21 2009 10:52 writer22816 wrote:
oh and what's with all these new protoss players popping out of nowhere whining about PvZ imba
if anyone wants to argue statistics, I took the ZvP samples from all the maps of the current season (fighting spirit, match point, neo moon glaive, neo HBR, neo tornado, outsider SE, odd-eye, ultimatum, el nino, eye of the storm, HBR, moon glaive, tornado and outsider) and added them up.
ZvP
11-9 on FS
9-8 on match point
1-1 on neo moon glaive
3-4 on neo HBR
0-0 on neo tornado
9-8 on outsider SE
0-2 on odd-eye
1-2 on ultimatum
7-2 on el nino (imba map)
5-6 on eye of the storm
35-32 on HBR
2-1 on moon glaive
4-0 on tornado (possibly imba)
13-11 on outsider
TOTAL: 100-86 (53.76%)
If we disregard El Nino which is obviously imbalanced we get 93-84 which is 52.54%. Disregard tornado as well it's 89-84 or 51.45%.
Those stats look pretty damn balanced to me, unless some idiot like Traveler or old times sake think that's incredibly imba?
Okay so you can come to a thread and start a specifically defined off-topic already-existing flamewar LINKED IN THE OP and call the OP an "idiot", but ... yeah. BTW people disagree with what you wrote there, but you posted to the wrong thread ... GJ BTW. Hey show me one place where I said I think P>Z in pro gaming history due to statistical evidence? One place? One little quote? Show me please. Oh wait, you can't, but thanks for the high-quality output.
|
On December 21 2009 11:04 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 10:52 writer22816 wrote:
oh and what's with all these new protoss players popping out of nowhere whining about PvZ imba
if anyone wants to argue statistics, I took the ZvP samples from all the maps of the current season (fighting spirit, match point, neo moon glaive, neo HBR, neo tornado, outsider SE, odd-eye, ultimatum, el nino, eye of the storm, HBR, moon glaive, tornado and outsider) and added them up.
ZvP
11-9 on FS
9-8 on match point
1-1 on neo moon glaive
3-4 on neo HBR
0-0 on neo tornado
9-8 on outsider SE
0-2 on odd-eye
1-2 on ultimatum
7-2 on el nino (imba map)
5-6 on eye of the storm
35-32 on HBR
2-1 on moon glaive
4-0 on tornado (possibly imba)
13-11 on outsider
TOTAL: 100-86 (53.76%)
If we disregard El Nino which is obviously imbalanced we get 93-84 which is 52.54%. Disregard tornado as well it's 89-84 or 51.45%.
Those stats look pretty damn balanced to me, unless some idiot like Traveler or old times sake think that's incredibly imba? Okay so you can come to a thread and start a specifically defined off-topic already-existing flamewar LINKED IN THE OP and call the OP an "idiot", but ... yeah. BTW people disagree with what you wrote there, but you posted to the wrong thread ... GJ BTW. Hey show me one place where I said I think P>Z in pro gaming history due to statistical evidence? One place? One little quote? Show me please. Oh wait, you can't, but thanks for the high-quality output.
Oh, so just because toss progamers can't beat zerg progamers you need to make a huge topic here suggesting mostly changes that would affect other matchups so that FINALLY protoss will be the best race to play? In warcraft3 some of the top orc players are like, 70%+ over undead while only the best of the best undead players could barely manage over 50%+, so what are all the undead players supposed to do, vent on forums and cry for changes like you and hope that blizzard will do something about it?
|
I like the idea about improving the reaver, as boxer himself said the reaver has gotten dumb and it should be brought back to what it was in a previous patch.... 1.8 i think... im not sure though.
|
On December 21 2009 11:04 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 10:52 writer22816 wrote:
oh and what's with all these new protoss players popping out of nowhere whining about PvZ imba
if anyone wants to argue statistics, I took the ZvP samples from all the maps of the current season (fighting spirit, match point, neo moon glaive, neo HBR, neo tornado, outsider SE, odd-eye, ultimatum, el nino, eye of the storm, HBR, moon glaive, tornado and outsider) and added them up.
ZvP
11-9 on FS
9-8 on match point
1-1 on neo moon glaive
3-4 on neo HBR
0-0 on neo tornado
9-8 on outsider SE
0-2 on odd-eye
1-2 on ultimatum
7-2 on el nino (imba map)
5-6 on eye of the storm
35-32 on HBR
2-1 on moon glaive
4-0 on tornado (possibly imba)
13-11 on outsider
TOTAL: 100-86 (53.76%)
If we disregard El Nino which is obviously imbalanced we get 93-84 which is 52.54%. Disregard tornado as well it's 89-84 or 51.45%.
Those stats look pretty damn balanced to me, unless some idiot like Traveler or old times sake think that's incredibly imba? BTW people disagree with what you wrote there, but you posted to the wrong thread ... GJ BTW. Hey show me one place where I said I think P>Z in pro gaming history due to statistical evidence? One place? One little quote? Show me please. Oh wait, you can't, but thanks for the high-quality output.
OK first of all you're arguing that PvZ is imba based on random arbitrary evidence pulled out of your ass. If you actually read your own thread you'd realize that a lot of people disagree with you and for good reason. Anyways you go on to discuss how might we improve the PvZ "imbalance" which may or may not even exist and anyone who disagrees should go to the other thread because OMG I DON'T WANT TO HEAR I'M WRONG THIS THREAD SHOULD ONLY BE ABOUT AGREEING WITH ME AND DISCUSSING HOW PVZ SHOULD BE CHANGED EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T EVEN PROVED THAT THE IMBALANCE EXISTS AND THAT THIS THREAD MIGHT NOT EVEN BE NEEDED.
You just want positive feedback from people who agree with you and can't accept that your idea might be flawed to begin with.
|
pool cost: 200 -> 150
lurker research: 200/200 -> 125/125
zealot 60/100 -> 80/80
sunken colony hit points 300 -> 400
there
all balanced
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States47024 Posts
Never mind the strategy of it, some of those ideas just sound ridiculous in relation to the fluff. Double Archon range? How the hell does an Archon that blasts as far as a marine, hydra, or dragoon make ANY sense?
What's more, trying to "fix" balance in one matchup is silly. The game has historically been acknowledged to be P > T > Z > P. Fixing just PvZ would turn it into P > T > Z = P, which makes the overall skew in protoss's favor, not balanced.
|
On December 21 2009 10:52 writer22816 wrote:
oh and what's with all these new protoss players popping out of nowhere whining about PvZ imba
if anyone wants to argue statistics, I took the ZvP samples from all the maps of the current season (fighting spirit, match point, neo moon glaive, neo HBR, neo tornado, outsider SE, odd-eye, ultimatum, el nino, eye of the storm, HBR, moon glaive, tornado and outsider) and added them up.
ZvP
11-9 on FS
9-8 on match point
1-1 on neo moon glaive
3-4 on neo HBR
0-0 on neo tornado
9-8 on outsider SE
0-2 on odd-eye
1-2 on ultimatum
7-2 on el nino (imba map)
5-6 on eye of the storm
35-32 on HBR
2-1 on moon glaive
4-0 on tornado (possibly imba)
13-11 on outsider
TOTAL: 100-86 (53.76%)
If we disregard El Nino which is obviously imbalanced we get 93-84 which is 52.54%. Disregard tornado as well it's 89-84 or 51.45%.
Those stats look pretty damn balanced to me, unless some idiot like Traveler or old times sake think that's incredibly imba?
Haha, thank you for proving my point I was wondering if I was going to have to go looking for those.
Anyways map making is obviously closin the difference, so we should be discussing map elements instead of getting Blizzard to be changing the races themselves.
I am incredibly hurt by you calling me an idiot though, I think I shall go find my "inferior" corner to cry in (lol)
|
On December 21 2009 07:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ALL zergs are doing well right now? Let's look at the top 12 zergs by ELO (past 10 zvp)
Jaedong: 7-3
Calm: 8-2
Effort: 10-0
Zero: 7-3
Kwanro: 8-2
-------------------
Luxury: 4-6
815-: 5-5
Shine: 5-5
July: 6-4
Hero: 6-4
yarnc: 5-5
type-b: 5-5
So we have 5 zergs who are having great success against protoss, and then the rest of the pack is pretty balanced. This looks EXACTLY like what was happening during the golden age of protoss, when you had 6 tosses wrecking zerg's shit.
On December 21 2009 08:07 old times sake wrote:
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...
What if I made a thread called There are too many jews in the world, discuss and then wrote in the OP not to flame me and to discuss specifically the topic I have brought up? People wouldn't have fucking a philosophical discussion on whether or not there are too many jews, they'd tell me there shouldn't be a discussion in the first place.
How can you have a rational discussion on about something that isn't broken?
|
I love how the OP thought that writing "THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO FLAME ME FOR MY DUMB IDEAS" in the first post was going to stop him from being flamed for having dumb ideas.
|
Proving your point? Those stats makes the matchup seem pretty balanced i would say.
|
This thread is informative! Let's discuss pies. I like pumpkin pies personally, but I also favor apple pies because of the difference in temperature causes nice sensations in my mouth.
|
OP is doing the stupid 13 year old bullshit of assuming he's the smartest fucker in existence and continuing to argue over his point again and again even though he's already long realized that he's wrong, simply because he doesn't want us all to realize it either (which is a moot point because we already have)
|
no changes are needed to the game. zvp is imbalanced but only to a fault which could be fixed via maps. Changing anything unit wise will just screw the other mu's
|
On December 21 2009 13:00 ghermination wrote:
OP is doing the stupid 13 year old bullshit of assuming he's the smartest fucker in existence and continuing to argue over his point again and again even though he's already long realized that he's wrong, simply because he doesn't want us all to realize it either (which is a moot point because we already have)
I think the OP forgot to skate.
|
On December 21 2009 13:00 ghermination wrote:
OP is doing the stupid 13 year old bullshit of assuming he's the smartest fucker in existence and continuing to argue over his point again and again even though he's already long realized that he's wrong, simply because he doesn't want us all to realize it either (which is a moot point because we already have)
I wish I was a mod so I could tell which previously banned user he was.
Maybe they will tell us eventually.
|
and why aren't you discussing my personal favorite flavor of pies? well?
You can only discuss my flavor of pie, and we need to figure out why it is the most favorite flavor of players because statistics says that most people like it already, so we should change the recipe, let's discuss new recipes for our pies to fix the problem of why apple pie is already definitively better than pumpkin pie.
|
Imo protoss players need to be more creative, within bounds of reason that is. They need to stop doing 2 archon speed zeal pushes every game and try to adapt and manipulate zergs better.
By this I mean builds that are actually viable, not 1 base builds (unless there is an inside base protected with a ramp). Things like doing reaver sair into dt / ht drop with aggressive expansions or different kinds of early game eco harassment or early game pushes.
I think protosses need to drop the Idea that there is a DT opening and a zealot timing opening, You can open with a huge plethora of builds if you just have a purpose with them.
|
IMO protoss players need to grow a pair and quit making threads about imbalance in the forums.
|
On December 21 2009 13:21 StarBrift wrote:
Imo protoss players need to be more creative, within bounds of reason that is. They need to stop doing 2 archon speed zeal pushes every game and try to adapt and manipulate zergs better.
By this I mean builds that are actually viable, not 1 base builds (unless there is an inside base protected with a ramp). Things like doing reaver sair into dt / ht drop with aggressive expansions or different kinds of early game eco harassment or early game pushes.
I think protosses need to drop the Idea that there is a DT opening and a zealot timing opening, You can open with a huge plethora of builds if you just have a purpose with them.
I agree with this completely. I hear people talking about 7 zealot timing builds and all this other shit which just sound ridiculous to me. They give you no room to adapt at all. "So and So makes 7 zealots at 6 minutes with + 1" This doesnt take into account what the zerg did at all. What if the zerg makes tons of extra sunkens or a shitton more lings than normal? People are going overboard with builds that are too deep into games.
|
this thread is a complete trainwreck
|
Most confusing OP ever.... And that formatting makes it more difficult to sort out, not easier. I guess you're asking what changes to P would only effect PvZ but that's really hard to answer because with the exception of maybe archons which are rarely used in PvT any change to one MU would effect the other ones as well.
|
Starcraft isn't completely balanced, but I would say that the all the Protoss match-ups are balanced enough that no changes are necessary. The only idea I have read so far that I like and I think would be legitimately for the better is increasing the archons range to the same as the mutalisk.
|
Arg, you cant put up an eye-bleeding post and then just scream "don't flame" when anyone disagrees with you.
As a Z player I mess around with P a lot and find I do quite well since I can predict what Z is doing. This is what matters at low levels, not balance.
At pro levels it.. seems pretty balanced. There are a few zergs stomping face but as the posted statistics show we seem to be around 50%.
This thread should be cloooosed.
|
On December 21 2009 13:21 StarBrift wrote:
"builds that are actually viable"
"not 1 base builds"
I agree with your post entirely except for that part. 1 base builds are perfectly viable (i.e. 2gate/1gate tech)
|
I wonder if there's a possibility of, in SC2, creating three "races" for each race. Example - for Protoss: a race for PvZ, a second similar to the first for PvT, and a third for PvP.
This type of setup would make it a lot easier to correct imbalances in the matchups as they appear without having to worry about whether a change will affect a completely different matchup. Something like range and damage modifiers, build time modifiers, and cost modifiers for each. I don't see why this isn't already in effect.
And why hasn't Blizzard figured out a way to make the scout a more useful unit? Or the queen? Or the valkyrie? Might as well make a few changes to those units so that we could see them in more games, instead of leaving them as they are, with most players simply regarding them as useless game-losing options.
|
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
I wonder if there's a possibility of, in SC2, creating three "races" for each race. Example - for Protoss: a race for PvZ, a second similar to the first for PvT, and a third for PvP.
That's honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
This type of setup would make it a lot easier to correct imbalances in the matchups as they appear without having to worry about whether a change will affect a completely different matchup. Something like range and damage modifiers, build time modifiers, and cost modifiers for each. I don't see why this isn't already in effect.
Because it's retarded. All of a sudden you don't have Protoss, you have Protoss-vT, Protoss-vZ and Protoss-vP and you have to learn each of those separate races individually. Basically, you're suggesting that instead of three races we have nine, but each one of those nine can only play against one of the other nine races.
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
And why hasn't Blizzard figured out a way to make the scout a more useful unit? Or the queen? Or the valkyrie? Might as well make a few changes to those units so that we could see them in more games, instead of leaving them as they are, with most players simply regarding them as useless game-losing options.
Because they're not actively patching Starcraft -_- There are plenty of things that could be done to those units to make them useful, and the queen/valk are useful now-- just not so useful as to be standard.
|
Wtf if wrong with you?? Have you thought about PvT then?? What would happen with that mu .....
|
I'm sorry I shouldn't have told you to make this thread
|
The beauty of PvZ is in this "imbalance".
Zerg has advantages in scouting, cost effective unit count, and movement, but protoss has flexible population control and arguably, more heavy harassment, it takes more intuitive play for the protoss, while zerg can make more analytical choices midgame, but that kind of "imbalance" is found in ZvT and PvT as well. (Terran requiring more intuitive plays such as timing pushes and Zerg's transition to 3 gas play-->stopping the tank hanbang with the right amount of units, the other require optimal scouting and more mechanical emphasis of its cost effective units.)
Even on the forgiveness factor, a zerg can recover after a failed 5 pool, sure, but so can a protoss from a failed proxy gate in pvt, an 8 rax in TvZ, they have that advantage, but I wouldn't call it imbalance, in fact its a predictable circumstance for any experienced player, and if you to lose to shit like that on a consistent basis, you deserve it, its a failure on your part and the particular skills you should have worked on.
I would only consider PvZ imbalanced, if there was a rigid build order or style of zerg that would always win without any interval of luck and a massive disparity of skill absent of map imbalance. But there is no such zerg build order, all of them have rightful counters and the only thing I would hold it accountable is the map itself, being able to give such a thing that invincible edge.
In other words, they take different skills to play, and comparing their difficulty isn't compatible, I honestly think many protoss are so infused with the game flow of PvT/PvP (the macro and micro are quite similar imo) and when they touch PvZ, they are maladaptive, because it is so distinct in game style. Sure you have some attributes of your PvT gamestyle into it, maybe even the same kind of reaver tactics you would pull in PvP, but the general flow of PvZ in adaptation and resource management is a far call.
|
This thread is ugly, and since it is a wreck I might as well give another post. Its a sad state when someone who knows this community well enough probably would have guessed that even something this benign would lead to flames. Mostly the tread goes to show who is quick to flame and say idiotic things.
Of course the op has a hidden assumption of pvz imbalance, but he even want out of his way to not talk about it directly and say that was not what the thread was about. Yet people have to jump in and flame. Sure, the op could have presented it better, and I don't like that he responded to my post as if I was saying the op was pointless when I clearly stated its worth talking about at least. Look "old times sake", threads have gone down before, and I've weathered getting flamed throughout a thread before as well. If this really matters to you, you can probably have a mod close this and you can start a new one with the same basic premise.
But, I will say it would be interesting to me if you did something like a poll that asked if everyone agreed to buffing the scout, and then show blizzard the 500signitures or something. That would certainly go more to setting a precedent for change, and naturally set other ideas in motion.
|
Okay, I give up, close this thread... we can't have this discussion apparently.
edit: OP kept getting uglier and uglier as I tried to modify it to get people to start following it. Nothing worked, so it got progressively worse and worse. Now it's gone. You guys "won", GG.
|
quick input...
if u want changes that affect PvZ but not PvT then here are some things that mainly play part in PvZ but not PvT
- cannons (perhaps adding more life to them would be good, it would help against hydra breaks but not ling runby which can be dealt with)
- corsair (make them cost less perhaps. less gas perhaps. or give them more life. like barely die to 2 scourge)
- dark archon (make maelstorm cost 75 like psi storm.)
others that i would like to see would be
- more speed on high templars. like as fast as DTs sounds fair
- make observers barely survive 1 scourge
thats all i can think of that would improve PvZ at least a little bit without changing other match ups all that much. tho im afraid nerfing cannon could change pvp as well. dont know just my 2 cents
|
PvZ is hard but not imbalanced i guess. Nobody is going to change anything, so why even this discussion. I am p user and i have problems against z, but usually i know what was my mistake and it is preventable. Just practice to play better and don't make mistakes.
|
On December 21 2009 15:59 UGC4 wrote:
quick input...
if u want changes that affect PvZ but not PvT then here are some things that mainly play part in PvZ but not PvT
- cannons (perhaps adding more life to them would be good, it would help against hydra breaks but not ling runby which can be dealt with)
- corsair (make them cost less perhaps. less gas perhaps. or give them more life. like barely die to 2 scourge)
- dark archon (make maelstorm cost 75 like psi storm.)
others that i would like to see would be
- more speed on high templars. like as fast as DTs sounds fair
- make observers barely survive 1 scourge
thats all i can think of that would improve PvZ at least a little bit without changing other match ups all that much. tho im afraid nerfing cannon could change pvp as well. dont know just my 2 cents
More life to cannons and 6 zerlings would die to 1 cannon....
Corsairs are already raping zerg when 5+(critical mass) cost less or more life would rape the balance of the match up so hard.
Dark archon could work but also see it from the zerg point of view if you can malestrom early or more times and succed zerg would stop using mutas cause they will die so easy vs DA+Archon.
Fast HT would make 5 lair hydra suck balls cause this build is base on speed moment from hydras to harras toss, if you can get storm anywere faster your rape this.
If observers survive 1 scourge they would fly over turrets no problem giving toss much more easyer or information he wouldn't get at all vT and zergs can't barely scourge observers actually how would hurt them if they survive that 1 scourge???=> Maybe it would be easier if toss players just research range upgrade for observers so they could detect lurkers from a safe distance behind the army....
My 2 cents
Sorry for the crappy english
|
On December 21 2009 06:52 sS.NuB wrote:ZvP sure is tho. Mutas are imbalanced too.
when will people finally realize that a match up CAN NOT BE IMBALANCED
u can just not look at any match up except mirror match ups without knowing on which map its played..
the map plays such an important role..
its not the match up..
dear lord..
|
still with p players cry themselves to sleep? Daum you should try zvt, then come back and complain.
Sigh- how many of these threads are up now? what a shame....
|
Yes, at progamer level Zerg has a very important strategic advantage. And yes the current fast scourge builds kind of nullify corsair play.
But let's say PvZ is really imbalanced at progamer level and Blizzard fixes it, how the hell is a new player ever going to win a ZvP. I play terran and sometimes I think ZvP is even more imbalanced than TvP, which is ridiculous already.
It's annoying how the topic starter tries to prevent everyone from discussing the issue of imbalance. It's stupid. And stop acting so childish.
But people need to realize that SC isn't balanced. You can't even show if its possible for a game to be balanced. And even stats don't mean much since it's very possible that at any level of skill certain races have just the more skilled players. I will bet that at iccup at D+- level 1/3th of the terrans used to be C- with either Z or P and played more than twice as long as their D+ opponents.
It's very possible that P players are just less skilled at progamer level. Also, the fact that P can't do anything that autowins, which they seemed to be used to, doesn't mean it's imbalanced. In TvP a terran feels abused even when he's winning. Remember that Iris vs Bisu game. T won but it was so ugly for T. P players are used to PvT, which is imbalanced at all levels of play in the same way. And when they play PvZ and they just have a strategic disadvantage they think it's imbalance. Fact is that Z can't stand up against a protoss army because of storm and reavers. Fact is that hive units, which are so absurd in ZvT, don't do so much.
The way SC works is just imbalanced. Z has dark swarm, which is an absurd ability. Then T has irradiate, which seems strong but isn't really. It just seems strong because it's the only way to not autolose and it's strong because it prevents zerg from using such an overpowered ability.
All matchups are about overpowered abilities and countering them.
Problem with protoss is just that it's too easy to play. You can't really do anything fancy with it. So progamers struggle sometimes. But it's still overpowered. Just watch Movie vs Zero. How is protoss imbalanced? And one can list like 10 PvT's where T should have won because P played so bad. And P's never lose because of imba. When P loses a PvT it's easy to see how they could have won if they just didn't play bad. Jangbi vs Really comes to mind.
If you were want to do something about PvZ strategically and make it more even, you can make it so a corsair builds faster. Maybe stargates build faster and corsair does at well. Have it cost less gas maybe. Have it not die to 2 scourge and remove the splash damage that kills infinitely many scourge and mutas if you have 5 or more.
But then they should also nerf storm. That way mutas will also be less powerful 
In the end zerg will always have the advantage at extremely high level because they can fine tune their builds perfectly because of how larva and drones work.
|
On December 21 2009 18:34 Misrah wrote:
still with p players cry themselves to sleep? Daum you should try zvt, then come back and complain.
Sigh- how many of these threads are up now? what a shame....
I did try ZvT. I prefer it to PvT... I'd still be race-picking ZvT/ZvZ/PvZ/PvP if CSL allowed it.
EDIT: Glaucus, you're why we can't have a balance discussion thread.
|
On December 21 2009 19:02 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 18:34 Misrah wrote:
still with p players cry themselves to sleep? Daum you should try zvt, then come back and complain.
Sigh- how many of these threads are up now? what a shame.... I did try ZvT. I prefer it to PvT... I'd still be race-picking ZvT/ZvZ/PvZ/PvP if CSL allowed it. EDIT: Glaucus, you're why we can't have a balance discussion thread.
lol we do allow it. You just have to guess correctly whether or not your opponent will be terran before the lineups go in (ie. figure out what opponent you will get on your map). Then you can play P / ZvT. =], or Z / PvP.
|
boost obs: making observers take 2 scourge to kill instead of 1 would significantly affect the matchup. Has PvT implications, I admit.
Just make the scourge do explosive damage. I imagine the obs is a small unit, while every other flier unit in the game is large. So it wouldn't break anything.
|
On December 21 2009 22:24 edahl wrote:Show nested quote +boost obs: making observers take 2 scourge to kill instead of 1 would significantly affect the matchup. Has PvT implications, I admit. Just make the scourge do explosive damage. I imagine the obs is a small unit, while every other flier unit in the game is large. So it wouldn't break anything.
Scourges doing explosive damage would only affect ZvZ actually.
Explosive damage does 50% vs small units, and the only small air units are: Mutalisks, Scourges, Observers and interceptors.
Scourges would still kill observer in one hit it has 20 shield, 40 hitpoints. Therefore a scourge would damage it by 110
110 - 20 shield = 90 damage left
90/2 = 45 - 40 hitpoints = 0 (with 5 damage exceeding)
Boosting the obs would affect PvT probably. Turrets do not prioritize between observers/shuttle.
If it takes scourges more hits to kill the observer, so will take a turret. It would make reaver drops and zealot bombs even more devastating PvT.
PS: PvZ is not imbalance t.t
Just practice it more. Im a protoss player and makes me sad to see MANLY protoss players whining. Leave that for the girly races.
|
|
|
Well PvZ is imba, even the best protoss player (bisu)'s PvZ ELO peak is nowhere near other top Terran player's TvZ ELO peak. (I think his vZ peak is at 10ish). So that definately says something. But... I like it this way coz i am Zerg. What i'd suggest though is to give dragoons some sort of buff, maybe change its damage type (so it does 20 damage to zerglings instead of 10.). I am sure ALOT of Protoss have ran into situations where you attack a zerg expansion, the zerg is almost dead, but your zealots are also dead, his zerglings spawn and you see your 12 dragoons raped by 24 zergling.
|
Calgary25977 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
