|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
7range vs 7range doesn't feel like a counter anymore, still thors are really clumpy and unlike colossi can't just walk over everything to snipe your infestors, so I guess it is still OK...
Probably meant to be something that evens the battle field, rather than a counter.
I.E I was watching Stephano play today, can't remember if it was IPL or NASL, but when he NP'd tanks he got really close to them before doing it. Obviously a nerf is a nerf, but it doesn't seem like Zerg have trouble getting their infestors close in TvZ, at least from the games I watch.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units.
hypocracy yourself (and you spelled it wrong anyway, didn't know we were debating hippos ideologies).
I included all the important massed units. The colossus is the same cost as an ultra, when do you see more than 6? The HT, when do you see more than 8? The observer, when do you see more than 3? The sentry, ah, debatable. regardless I actually didn't WANT to do the whole thing, so I cherry picked the most often used units (as per the census data on units used in SC2, and as what I see used IN MASS against me all the time, blink stalkers, or VRs, or some combo of them in a deathball with some coloss, etc), because they being the most often used units, are not like the zerg units, as you nearly have to use all the zerg units at some point, because they are great counters to what they counter, but are sub-optimal at BEST vs anything else. so you need to keep making different masses of different units as zerg. You only need to make 1 obs/3 coloss/etc.
On September 16 2011 15:27 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:33 Staboteur wrote:On September 16 2011 12:08 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point. It's assuming a normal game. If there is a point that the protoss has hindered the zerg to make him not ahead at that point in time, that means the protoss is outplaying him and deserves the win barring a huge error. Zergs will just continue to try and act like the matchup is protoss-favored despite zerg having been ahead in international winrates since April. Let me see if I've got this right: Zerg has an economic advantage in any "normal" game where neither side has harassed the other nor any major macro mistakes have occurred. If the Protoss -does- manage to upset this balance and reduce the Zerg to an -equal- economy, the Zerg should by all rights lose the game. So if Zerg does not have an economic advantage, Zerg should lose more often than not. This is your argument for the matchup being in Zerg's favour? That if they don't have more supply and resources spent into economy they should lose because... the other dude's playing protoss? Cool story bro. I like that our advantage isn't even an advantage at all, because by your logic if we're on equal ground, I'm behind. It was like that in BW, too.
No it wasn't I played BW and you're wrong. Zerg units were the cheapest at all levels.
On September 16 2011 16:09 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units. this comparison is stupid and says nothing of worth (ok, ill give you that this shows you how much gas you should mine per mineral mined to be able to mass a certain unit type, it says nothing regarding balance), this is what it says: minerals / gas: this gives an index of gas intensity, but does not say how expensive the unit is. (notice this claims siege tanks are less gas-intense than dark templars) (this claims vikings are equally gas intense as a single baneling) (this claims mutalisks are more gas-intense than carriers) some better comparisons would be: gas/supply : this shows how much a 200/200 army (of the single unit type aka not very useful unless used realistically) costs in gas compared to other races (gas+minerals)/supply : this shows how much an army (same thing about a single unit type) costs compared to the other races (minerals / gas) * supply = gas intensity * supply: this gives an index of the "importance" of the unit. (notice this claims siege tanks are more important than dark templars) (this claims vikings are more important than single banelings) (this claims mutalisks are less important than carriers) *this can also be called the "required tech-investment" into the unit p.s. I am not a whiner nor a balance complainer, just thought I would try to turn the attention away from useless facts.
I appreciate your effort, but a certain number of banelings will precisely equal 1 viking. a certain number of hydras will precisely equal a certain number of banelings. thats the basis and point of it. That if you build X amount of Y unit, you COULD HAVE bought W amount of Z unit. Unit worth depends on whether it counters whats on the field or not. A carrier doesn't have much worth with a bunch of vikings in the air.
Your attempt to ascribe worth falls short when it gets countered. the other statistics never change with conditions in the game, so they are by and large the most effective means of understanding how much of something you have, which has limited how much of some other thing you can have.
|
1 to 1 unit comparisons are so retarded, why are people comparing stalkers and roaches. It's not just the unit that is important but the synergy it can form with other units.
Yes roaches are great vs stalker early on. But they lose relevance the longer the game because protoss can add units into their composition. You don't reach to mass roach with mass stalker. You get sentries to create new battle field conditions where only a percentage of the roaches can actually engage. You add immortals, extra bases. Zerg doesn't reach 30 roaches off one base, so you have the time to acquire the tech.
Why do people fail so much.
|
On September 16 2011 17:05 Truedot wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units. hypocracy yourself (and you spelled it wrong anyway, didn't know we were debating hippos ideologies). I included all the important massed units. The colossus is the same cost as an ultra, when do you see more than 6? The HT, when do you see more than 8? The observer, when do you see more than 3? The sentry, ah, debatable. regardless I actually didn't WANT to do the whole thing, so I cherry picked the most often used units (as per the census data on units used in SC2, and as what I see used IN MASS against me all the time, blink stalkers, or VRs, or some combo of them in a deathball with some coloss, etc), because they being the most often used units, are not like the zerg units, as you nearly have to use all the zerg units at some point, because they are great counters to what they counter, but are sub-optimal at BEST vs anything else. so you need to keep making different masses of different units as zerg. You only need to make 1 obs/3 coloss/etc. Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 15:27 Ribbon wrote:On September 16 2011 14:33 Staboteur wrote:On September 16 2011 12:08 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point. It's assuming a normal game. If there is a point that the protoss has hindered the zerg to make him not ahead at that point in time, that means the protoss is outplaying him and deserves the win barring a huge error. Zergs will just continue to try and act like the matchup is protoss-favored despite zerg having been ahead in international winrates since April. Let me see if I've got this right: Zerg has an economic advantage in any "normal" game where neither side has harassed the other nor any major macro mistakes have occurred. If the Protoss -does- manage to upset this balance and reduce the Zerg to an -equal- economy, the Zerg should by all rights lose the game. So if Zerg does not have an economic advantage, Zerg should lose more often than not. This is your argument for the matchup being in Zerg's favour? That if they don't have more supply and resources spent into economy they should lose because... the other dude's playing protoss? Cool story bro. I like that our advantage isn't even an advantage at all, because by your logic if we're on equal ground, I'm behind. It was like that in BW, too. No it wasn't I played BW and you're wrong. Zerg units were the cheapest at all levels. Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 16:09 Roblin wrote:On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units. this comparison is stupid and says nothing of worth (ok, ill give you that this shows you how much gas you should mine per mineral mined to be able to mass a certain unit type, it says nothing regarding balance), this is what it says: minerals / gas: this gives an index of gas intensity, but does not say how expensive the unit is. (notice this claims siege tanks are less gas-intense than dark templars) (this claims vikings are equally gas intense as a single baneling) (this claims mutalisks are more gas-intense than carriers) some better comparisons would be: gas/supply : this shows how much a 200/200 army (of the single unit type aka not very useful unless used realistically) costs in gas compared to other races (gas+minerals)/supply : this shows how much an army (same thing about a single unit type) costs compared to the other races (minerals / gas) * supply = gas intensity * supply: this gives an index of the "importance" of the unit. (notice this claims siege tanks are more important than dark templars) (this claims vikings are more important than single banelings) (this claims mutalisks are less important than carriers) *this can also be called the "required tech-investment" into the unit p.s. I am not a whiner nor a balance complainer, just thought I would try to turn the attention away from useless facts. I appreciate your effort, but a certain number of banelings will precisely equal 1 viking. a certain number of hydras will precisely equal a certain number of banelings. thats the basis and point of it. That if you build X amount of Y unit, you COULD HAVE bought W amount of Z unit. Unit worth depends on whether it counters whats on the field or not. A carrier doesn't have much worth with a bunch of vikings in the air. Your attempt to ascribe worth falls short when it gets countered. the other statistics never change with conditions in the game, so they are by and large the most effective means of understanding how much of something you have, which has limited how much of some other thing you can have.
What is it with zerg players pulling irrelevant, bias and meaningless statistics out of their ass? It has definitely been a trend in this topic for zergs to start piling a heap of meaningless numbers into a post and trying to make it mean something. In fact it isn't just zerg but a lot of stupid people do it.
Some notable examples;
- Your gas percentage compositions. Not only do they mean shit all, you failed to add all the protoss examples, probably because they actually are counter productive to your arguement and make it look ridiculous (excluding the fact your this stupid percentage composition stuff means nothing anyway)
-The moron who said 'stalkers counter everything lolol 2 stalkers beats a broodlord'; Yeah ok champ cause thats relevant
-'20 roaches loses to 20 blink stalkers' Yeah no shit buddy, the resource cost for each side doesn't even come close to make it a fair comparison.
Notable example from an different thread; '130 supply of pure immortals beats 130 supply of marines, marauders, and any bio composition you can think of!'; Yeah thanks for that Einstein, stop the fucking presses Immortals are OP!
There was some intelligent person in this thread that said 'next time someone says 20 roaches lose to 20 stalkers, I will tell them 20 stalkers loses to 20 broodlords', and that pretty much sums up my thoughts.
TLDR; Don't come up with stupid, meaningless statistics and then insist on excluding anything that will invalidate it.
Oh, and when someone pulls you up on this omission, don't come up with even more stupid reasons about why they are wrong 'but but high templars and colossi don't make up an entire army, therefore their inclusion is meaningless', no sorry buddy if you are gonna pull stupid 'statistics' out of your ass you don't go emitting the ones that you don't like with a ridiculous, subjective justification.
Edit: You forgot to include your cheap, powerful, massable T1 unit; the zergling! 0% gas usage! The unit that zerg can actually RELY on using for a portion of the early and mid game? I'd like to see Protoss try stick with zealots only until the midgame so they can save gas and pump out 12 infestors when we feel like it, see how well that goes for them. Instead we are forced to burn our gas on sentries so we don't die to simple roach/ling pressure (assuming we are playing standard, and not some stargate shenanigans.)
|
On September 16 2011 17:36 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 17:05 Truedot wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units. hypocracy yourself (and you spelled it wrong anyway, didn't know we were debating hippos ideologies). I included all the important massed units. The colossus is the same cost as an ultra, when do you see more than 6? The HT, when do you see more than 8? The observer, when do you see more than 3? The sentry, ah, debatable. regardless I actually didn't WANT to do the whole thing, so I cherry picked the most often used units (as per the census data on units used in SC2, and as what I see used IN MASS against me all the time, blink stalkers, or VRs, or some combo of them in a deathball with some coloss, etc), because they being the most often used units, are not like the zerg units, as you nearly have to use all the zerg units at some point, because they are great counters to what they counter, but are sub-optimal at BEST vs anything else. so you need to keep making different masses of different units as zerg. You only need to make 1 obs/3 coloss/etc. On September 16 2011 15:27 Ribbon wrote:On September 16 2011 14:33 Staboteur wrote:On September 16 2011 12:08 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point. It's assuming a normal game. If there is a point that the protoss has hindered the zerg to make him not ahead at that point in time, that means the protoss is outplaying him and deserves the win barring a huge error. Zergs will just continue to try and act like the matchup is protoss-favored despite zerg having been ahead in international winrates since April. Let me see if I've got this right: Zerg has an economic advantage in any "normal" game where neither side has harassed the other nor any major macro mistakes have occurred. If the Protoss -does- manage to upset this balance and reduce the Zerg to an -equal- economy, the Zerg should by all rights lose the game. So if Zerg does not have an economic advantage, Zerg should lose more often than not. This is your argument for the matchup being in Zerg's favour? That if they don't have more supply and resources spent into economy they should lose because... the other dude's playing protoss? Cool story bro. I like that our advantage isn't even an advantage at all, because by your logic if we're on equal ground, I'm behind. It was like that in BW, too. No it wasn't I played BW and you're wrong. Zerg units were the cheapest at all levels. On September 16 2011 16:09 Roblin wrote:On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units. this comparison is stupid and says nothing of worth (ok, ill give you that this shows you how much gas you should mine per mineral mined to be able to mass a certain unit type, it says nothing regarding balance), this is what it says: minerals / gas: this gives an index of gas intensity, but does not say how expensive the unit is. (notice this claims siege tanks are less gas-intense than dark templars) (this claims vikings are equally gas intense as a single baneling) (this claims mutalisks are more gas-intense than carriers) some better comparisons would be: gas/supply : this shows how much a 200/200 army (of the single unit type aka not very useful unless used realistically) costs in gas compared to other races (gas+minerals)/supply : this shows how much an army (same thing about a single unit type) costs compared to the other races (minerals / gas) * supply = gas intensity * supply: this gives an index of the "importance" of the unit. (notice this claims siege tanks are more important than dark templars) (this claims vikings are more important than single banelings) (this claims mutalisks are less important than carriers) *this can also be called the "required tech-investment" into the unit p.s. I am not a whiner nor a balance complainer, just thought I would try to turn the attention away from useless facts. I appreciate your effort, but a certain number of banelings will precisely equal 1 viking. a certain number of hydras will precisely equal a certain number of banelings. thats the basis and point of it. That if you build X amount of Y unit, you COULD HAVE bought W amount of Z unit. Unit worth depends on whether it counters whats on the field or not. A carrier doesn't have much worth with a bunch of vikings in the air. Your attempt to ascribe worth falls short when it gets countered. the other statistics never change with conditions in the game, so they are by and large the most effective means of understanding how much of something you have, which has limited how much of some other thing you can have. What is it with zerg players pulling irrelevant, bias and meaningless statistics out of their ass? It has definitely been a trend in this topic for zergs to start piling a heap of meaningless numbers into a post and trying to make it mean something. In fact it isn't just zerg but a lot of stupid people do it. Some notable examples; - Your gas percentage compositions. Not only do they mean shit all, you failed to add all the protoss examples, probably because they actually are counter productive to your arguement and make it look ridiculous (excluding the fact your this stupid percentage composition stuff means nothing anyway) -The moron who said 'stalkers counter everything lolol 2 stalkers beats a broodlord'; Yeah ok champ cause thats relevant -'20 roaches loses to 20 blink stalkers' Yeah no shit buddy, the resource cost for each side doesn't even come close to make it a fair comparison. Notable example from an different thread; '130 supply of pure immortals beats 130 supply of marines, marauders, and any bio composition you can think of!'; Yeah thanks for that Einstein, stop the fucking presses Immortals are OP! There was some intelligent person in this thread that said 'next time someone says 20 roaches lose to 20 stalkers, I will tell them 20 stalkers loses to 20 broodlords', and that pretty much sums up my thoughts. TLDR; Don't come up with stupid, meaningless statistics and then insist on excluding anything that will invalidate it. Oh, and when someone pulls you up on this omission, don't come up with even more stupid reasons about why they are wrong 'but but high templars and colossi don't make up an entire army, therefore their inclusion is meaningless', no sorry buddy if you are gonna pull stupid 'statistics' out of your ass you don't go emitting the ones that you don't like with a ridiculous, subjective justification. Edit: You forgot to include your cheap, powerful, massable T1 unit; the zergling! 0% gas usage! The unit that zerg can actually RELY on using for a portion of the early and mid game? I'd like to see Protoss try stick with zealots only until the midgame so they can save gas and pump out 12 infestors when we feel like it, see how well that goes for them. Instead we are forced to burn our gas on sentries so we don't die to simple roach/ling pressure (assuming we are playing standard, and not some stargate shenanigans.)
u mad?
User was warned for this post
|
Why they dont give feedback a higher range?!
It would help against Zerg Infestor play and against Terran!
The neural nerf will not affect ZvP alot, but Terran mechplay!
ZvT was maybe the only matchup that was close to be balanced ( I think it favors slightly T ). This nerf sucks realy hard!
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On September 16 2011 18:31 Rayjin wrote:
Why they dont give feedback a higher range?!
because feedback is the most broken thing in the game, only mad person or protoss nationalist can come to idea to buff this bullshit even further.
|
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 16 2011 18:43 Drakeblitz wrote:
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW.
Do you realy think there were no whinethreads about nerfs in BW? LoL
|
On September 16 2011 18:48 Rayjin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 18:43 Drakeblitz wrote:
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW. Do you realy think there were no whinethreads about nerfs in BW? LoL
Wasnt the last bw balance patch in 2001? 2003? Not quite sure.
|
On September 16 2011 18:48 Rayjin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 18:43 Drakeblitz wrote:
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW. Do you realy think there were no whinethreads about nerfs in BW? LoL
with 400+ pages of pure whine?
yes
|
On September 16 2011 19:07 epoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 18:48 Rayjin wrote:On September 16 2011 18:43 Drakeblitz wrote:
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW. Do you realy think there were no whinethreads about nerfs in BW? LoL Wasnt the last bw balance patch in 2001? 2003? Not quite sure.
They redirect their whining to maps, eg shitfinder. There are numerous balance whines in BW LR threads, they're just about maps instead.
The idea that a "better class" of people play one game over another is fucking stupid.
|
And its another time, more people with internet connection! :-)
|
With proper zerg whine (as always) these nerfs may not even see the daylight lol. Zergs community is "OP".
|
This thread should probably be locked at this point.
Let me say one thing to all the complaining Zerg players though, before I leave: You guys are really fortunate. You may lose to a deathball on ladder and rage at Colossus op, but in the end, you have awesome Zerg heroes in the GSL, who rarely even drop a game, much less a match, against Protoss. You know how to play the matchup in order to win, and while it's not easy to do, there is clearly something you can strive for.
Us Protoss players have MC losing to Check in the Up/Downs. So yeah, be thankful for that. I'd love it if there was something difficult, but super effective, that I could do against Zerg, but there really isn't anything at the moment.
|
There is enough said here >>
http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png
Everything is calculated using statistics.
Since the gap is soooo large........
Everybody knows who needs a nerf and a buff here....
|
Russian Federation1613 Posts
On September 16 2011 20:57 cbueno wrote:There is enough said here >> http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.pngEverything is calculated using statistics. Since the gap is soooo large........ Everybody knows who needs a nerf and a buff here....
Yes. The question is what to nerf.
|
On September 16 2011 18:43 Drakeblitz wrote:
This thread is the perfect answer to why SC2 will never be like BW.
I completely agree.
There are so many complaints about the game that it proves there is something wrong. In BW a thread like this would have been closed a long time ago.
|
On September 16 2011 20:57 cbueno wrote:There is enough said here >> http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.pngEverything is calculated using statistics. Since the gap is soooo large........ Everybody knows who needs a nerf and a buff here....
Omg its base on 2200 games.. and lower graphs on 800 and 500 games so dont think that u can base on this scores.
|
On September 16 2011 21:01 Jenia6109 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 20:57 cbueno wrote:There is enough said here >> http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.pngEverything is calculated using statistics. Since the gap is soooo large........ Everybody knows who needs a nerf and a buff here.... Yes. The question is what to nerf.
The question is whether or not he should he should intentionally link an old graph that doesn't show that the graphs have greatly evened out. Additionally, Blizzard has access to way more stats than any of us do, so for the fucking love of god, please don't think Blizzard is completely clueless. Every god damn interview we've seen has shown that they know what is going on, so have some faith, please. Reading this bullshit whine every god damn page makes me cringe, this thread is lower quality than official forums ._.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
