|
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 |
On September 16 2011 23:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 22:27 strength wrote:
Reduced infestor is even worse imho. Tanks, and collos will be able to snipe the investor ALOT easier and maybe even immortals since they are gonna have 6 range. OH wells, better then not having it at all hehe Im Zerg, and I complained alot about the original "massive"-change... But how is range 7 worse than not being able to control them at all?
With range 7, you won't be able to NP anything if the oponent don't make a huge mistake.
Well, with good control you can get the NP, but since the infestor has almost no life and it will be in range of the ennemy basic units, there is no way the NP will last enough to pay for the cost of an infestor.
Being able to NP ghost, tanks, HT, immortal, is better than being able to NP nothing (which is a direct result from the range 7).
The only excpetion may be against thor helion.
|
On September 17 2011 03:23 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 23:41 Big J wrote:On September 16 2011 22:27 strength wrote:
Reduced infestor is even worse imho. Tanks, and collos will be able to snipe the investor ALOT easier and maybe even immortals since they are gonna have 6 range. OH wells, better then not having it at all hehe Im Zerg, and I complained alot about the original "massive"-change... But how is range 7 worse than not being able to control them at all? With range 7, you won't be able to NP anything if the oponent don't make a huge mistake. Well, with good control you can get the NP, but since the infestor has almost no life and it will be in range of the ennemy basic units, there is no way the NP will last enough to pay for the cost of an infestor. Being able to NP ghost, tanks, HT, immortal, is better than being able to NP nothing (which is a direct result from the range 7). The only excpetion may be against thor helion.
Immortals will have range 6, NP range 7, so I think this is OK.
Tanks already have range 13, so you have to take shots already to NP them. Range 7 will be worse, but doable, especially as Marines MUST move away from a Zerg army with Infestors and/or banelings, so they can't really protect tanks from being NPed.
With range 7 you will still be able to NP more than with the massive restriction. And to complete you quoting me:
On September 16 2011 23:41 Big J wrote:
I think the change is alright, very tough and maybe 7.5 or 8 range would be better, as it was already close to undoable to NP really well controlled colossi and I would give Infestors a range advantage over Thors, but I think this might play out OK. Infestors will still be playable imo, but you might want to transition into something else earlier, which is easier to do through the ultralisk change (oh god, how long did we wait for this?!)
|
On September 16 2011 21:47 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +Wrong with the community - yes i agree on that.
Its because of Blizzards open approach to balance which has led to the community feeling entitiled to having an opinion on everything and that if they scream loud enough, their own race will get buffed or other races nerfed.
In BW people realized that it was pointless to cry about balance since Blizzard had no community involvement and the only thing that could effect balance from the community was different maps. BW was a 10 year long expansion. It was much more balanced than Wol. Also, you're implying that the community is just "whining" because they want blizz to buff their race, that's complete nonsense. When first patch note of 1.4 were released the majority agreed that the patch was fair, realistic and going in the right direction, Then Neural change appear, and huge septicism appear. It has nothing to do with cry, it's just that people think blizzard is making a very bad decision
The last balance patch for BW was in 2001 lol. That's a decade ago.
|
I am really looking forward for the new patch, next to the balance, they give us some nice privacy abilities! 
|
On September 16 2011 23:03 cbueno wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 22:40 HaXXspetten wrote:On September 16 2011 22:06 cbueno wrote:
The biggest problem here is not zerg vs terran cos on win/loose ratio they are very close. They more or less compensate each other.
Its the big gap between these two and Toss, thats large....
And yes, GSL is a living proof that Terran and Zerg are far far ahead of Toss
You can also add the chart above to it On September 15 2011 05:01 HaXXspetten wrote:On September 15 2011 04:41 ppshchik wrote:On May 15 2011 06:44 TheSubtleArt wrote:
Then you have people like Light and Best, who would have easily won a title (or more) by now if they didn't have to play their race's weak matchup (TvP and PvZ). Light's TvZ is and Best's PvT are unstoppable, but their TvP and PvZ matchups respectively are just awful. Its funny how Light is 3-0 vs Jaedong this season yet has a loosing record vs Perfectman lol.
Is Perfectman really that bad? Isn't Backho worse? Just gotta ask, how come every single person I ever meet spells "lose" with two O's? -.- Felt like I had to point this out again -.- while i admit my mistake, it should be "lose" the other guy is correct to spell it "loose". Now if we are going to point this out which is outside the topic, i am going to make you look bad too... "over doing" is not spelled "over-doing" and we can keep going in circles...a troll is always a troll!
Calling someone a troll for correcting spelling is a bit excessive. There are people who's jobs is it to edit the english language you know.
|
The last balance patch for BW was in 2001 lol. That's a decade ago.
Don't forget we are waiting for HoTS and BW brought many new things.
|
On September 17 2011 05:45 sc2trainer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 23:03 cbueno wrote:On September 16 2011 22:40 HaXXspetten wrote:On September 16 2011 22:06 cbueno wrote:
The biggest problem here is not zerg vs terran cos on win/loose ratio they are very close. They more or less compensate each other.
Its the big gap between these two and Toss, thats large....
And yes, GSL is a living proof that Terran and Zerg are far far ahead of Toss
You can also add the chart above to it On September 15 2011 05:01 HaXXspetten wrote:On September 15 2011 04:41 ppshchik wrote:On May 15 2011 06:44 TheSubtleArt wrote:
Then you have people like Light and Best, who would have easily won a title (or more) by now if they didn't have to play their race's weak matchup (TvP and PvZ). Light's TvZ is and Best's PvT are unstoppable, but their TvP and PvZ matchups respectively are just awful. Its funny how Light is 3-0 vs Jaedong this season yet has a loosing record vs Perfectman lol.
Is Perfectman really that bad? Isn't Backho worse? Just gotta ask, how come every single person I ever meet spells "lose" with two O's? -.- Felt like I had to point this out again -.- while i admit my mistake, it should be "lose" the other guy is correct to spell it "loose". Now if we are going to point this out which is outside the topic, i am going to make you look bad too... "over doing" is not spelled "over-doing" and we can keep going in circles...a troll is always a troll! Calling someone a troll for correcting spelling is a bit excessive. There are people who's jobs is it to edit the english language you know.
This thread officially just jumped the shark. I'll see you all in patch 1.5
|
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.)
I didnt include zerglings because 1: they get raped by a decent unit composition 2: they take no gas and therefore arent relevant. I didnt include many protoss units because you rarely make more than 10-15 of said units throughout the entire game unless you're really really bad and throw them away.
Zerg make 30 or more of these units during the course of the game, significantly adding to their gas hog status.
TL;DR, If you want to ignore facts because you prefer not listening thats fine, most people who play zerg agree that gas is the number one limiting factor because of Zerg Cost Inefficiency in units leading to a bottleneck by that resource. Meanwhile Protoss can sit back on 2 bases and max a deathball, whereas Zerg cannot do the same.
So, the question I have to ask is:
On September 16 2011 18:17 Karak wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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? [b [/b]
|
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard.
|
On September 17 2011 08:23 TotalNightmare wrote:
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard.
You're obviously new here... We argue about everything.
|
On September 17 2011 08:39 Havefa1th wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 08:23 TotalNightmare wrote:
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard. You're obviously new here... We argue about everything.
No we don't.
|
On September 17 2011 08:46 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 08:39 Havefa1th wrote:On September 17 2011 08:23 TotalNightmare wrote:
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard. You're obviously new here... We argue about everything. No we don't.
We basically do
Anyways, I really think that having range 7 is MUCH better than not being able to target massive. I hope this means mass infestor (infestor with little support, like destiny style) will get less popular as the infestors are gonna need a lot more support to be able to survive at that range 7, but now at least you are able to neural those power units like colossus.
|
On September 17 2011 08:23 TotalNightmare wrote:
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard.
If you don't want to read the discussion don't. Personally I find it very interesting to read opinions from all races even if they become heated arguments.
|
On September 17 2011 08:46 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 08:39 Havefa1th wrote:On September 17 2011 08:23 TotalNightmare wrote:
Well I am certain that this is the point where a capsed
THIS IS JUST A BLOODY GAME, GUYS!!!
is required. That's the point for you. Let pro gamers who earn their money whith this discuss the rest, they are at least inteligent enough to asume what the patch might cause and then will be waiting untill the metagame is on a kind of solid-ish path. And my statement doesn't cover IdrA, he obviously will whine about SC2 until there is SC3 or he is dead. But that depends on blizzard. You're obviously new here... We argue about everything. No we don't.
Arguing about not arguing... well played sir.
|
Guys, the idea behind range 7 is to make NPing colossi basically impossible, while still allowing thors to be NPed, That was the big problem with the massive change, thor/hellion was ridiculous.
Protoss need their colossi to function because they don't have a super-strong base unit like the marine or roach. Roaches utterly annihilate any combination of Protoss ground units that doesn't include colossus.
|
On September 17 2011 10:30 Xequecal wrote:
Guys, the idea behind range 7 is to make NPing colossi basically impossible, while still allowing thors to be NPed, That was the big problem with the massive change, thor/hellion was ridiculous.
Protoss need their colossi to function because they don't have a super-strong base unit like the marine or roach. Roaches utterly annihilate any combination of Protoss ground units that doesn't include colossus.
This. Everyone listen to this person because he's smarter than most of you.
|
You know, I don't really care about this NP change.
With 9 range, Infestors had the same range as Colossi and were just as vulnerable to being sniped then if their range is 7. With range 7, NP will 'kick in' a bit quicker than with range 9 as well.
Colossi were really the only targets for NP. Sure you could do cute things for NPing ghosts, vikings, siege tanks, or motherships, but none of that was ever really game changing.
|
On September 17 2011 10:34 AIRwar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 10:30 Xequecal wrote:
Guys, the idea behind range 7 is to make NPing colossi basically impossible, while still allowing thors to be NPed, That was the big problem with the massive change, thor/hellion was ridiculous.
Protoss need their colossi to function because they don't have a super-strong base unit like the marine or roach. Roaches utterly annihilate any combination of Protoss ground units that doesn't include colossus. This. Everyone listen to this person because he's smarter than most of you.
except why should protoss in every situation just make colli? Why are colli better at killing roaches when immortal was built to kill roach/tanks/thor??
|
On September 17 2011 10:45 Falcor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 10:34 AIRwar wrote:On September 17 2011 10:30 Xequecal wrote:
Guys, the idea behind range 7 is to make NPing colossi basically impossible, while still allowing thors to be NPed, That was the big problem with the massive change, thor/hellion was ridiculous.
Protoss need their colossi to function because they don't have a super-strong base unit like the marine or roach. Roaches utterly annihilate any combination of Protoss ground units that doesn't include colossus. This. Everyone listen to this person because he's smarter than most of you. except why should protoss in every situation just make colli? Why are colli better at killing roaches when immortal was built to kill roach/tanks/thor??
Splash damage? Immortals are nice for smaller fights, but huge supply fights Colossus are really nice...and splash damage synergy with forcefield is pretty great. Not to mention...Colossus have long range and can sit at the back of the Protoss army whereas Immortals in huge supply fights can get focus fired down and instantly killed. Furthermore, Immortals are easier to target with NP than Colossus, especially post patch.
|
On September 17 2011 10:34 AIRwar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 10:30 Xequecal wrote:
Guys, the idea behind range 7 is to make NPing colossi basically impossible, while still allowing thors to be NPed, That was the big problem with the massive change, thor/hellion was ridiculous.
Protoss need their colossi to function because they don't have a super-strong base unit like the marine or roach. Roaches utterly annihilate any combination of Protoss ground units that doesn't include colossus. This. Everyone listen to this person because he's smarter than most of you.
Yes, he's so smart that he thinks that immortals are getting owned by roaches.
+ Show Spoiler +Ok, you are correct. He's still smarter than most people on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
