|
On August 04 2010 19:20 PanzerKing wrote:
A list of tournaments is probative, but it's not dispositive by any means. You can toss out the two tournaments won by other players, because those don't support the point you're trying to make. In fact, one could argue that the PvZ outcome of the KOTB tournament is more dispositive than the others because the relative skill level of the participants was higher, on the whole.
You say he just provided tournaments where terran won. If you can provide a list of as important tournaments so that terran winnings and high places would only total about 33% then you have a point, but i doubt you'll find as many. Besides, what if the skill of the players of KOTB was higher? The other tournament's players still had to be somewhat high, and the fact that mostly terrans won, points that protoss and zergs of the same skill level lost consistently to them.
On August 04 2010 19:20 PanzerKing wrote:Aren't the Go4SC2 tournies EU-only? And aren't they open registration with a pretty small prize pool? Weren't some of the wins very close i.e. 3-2?
And weren't some 2-0, and 4-1 as well? What's your point? That terran should 2-0 everyone to be consdiered imbalanced?
On August 04 2010 19:20 PanzerKing wrote:That doesn't indicate dominance or imbalance by strictly top-notch players - you have to look at each individual game and the participants involved, then ask yourself "Were these players of equal skill? Did they play equally well? Was there some fundamental imbalance that favored one race over the other, that couldn't be overcome by better play?"
Overcome by better play? If there is imbalance it should be fixed, not overcome by better play. Whether they were at the same skill or not doesn't matter much. The fact is that some better protoss zerg players will face worse terrans and vice versa, however, what we see is that terran genereally wins, and to me that indeed points to terran dominance.
On August 04 2010 19:20 PanzerKing wrote:
If one high-level player beats another high-level player in a close series, or even a shutout, that means nothing in and of itself. You need more convincing proof to make a serious argument - something like a step-by-step analysis of a replay where you show two top-tier players competing against one another, each playing perfectly without serious mistakes, and one side losing simply because of the inordinate power of the other side's units or abilities (and that implies a decisive loss, not a close one that could have been decided by luck.)
[...] As it is, you have evidence that T has been doing well in a number of recent tournaments, but there's no demonstration of any imbalance in that data.
I wonder what is a serious contribution on the side of imbalance. Do you have idea how many variables there are to account for when trying to prove the imbalance of a unit / combo / race? It's a very hard task, and if you would manage it your brain power would better be used finding the Higgs Boson or studying climate changes.
You set yourself to ask an impossible task, that you know no one will provide you, so you think your argument stands. Two players playing perfectly? Proof of a unit or combo being inferior? This isn't a mathematical model where you can ask for proof that lightly. People asking for proof should get of their high horse and see what they're asking for is ridiculous.
"there's no demonstration of any imbalance in that data" Of course there isn't demonstration. If there was a demostration values would have to be 100% win rates for terran otherwise one can argue the 1% that won terran has found a way to beat them. This kind of data and statistics are not here to provide proof. That's not what they're for.
What he provided is another factor that adds up to several already that point to imbalance from the terran part. You can't ask for proof. Let me revert back your proposition to you. Make a serious contribution and analysis that the matchups are balanced. If you think about it you'll see how hard it would be, and that we have to resort to suspicious facts that point in some direction. We can't use deductive reasoning as you seem to want. Like in science, inductive is what we can and should use, and in that regard cuppatea did good.
We have
1) List of tournaments being won and taking high places by terrans almost exclusively
2) Race prevalence being dominated as terran on the very top contrasting with lower levels where they don't dominate
Top 5000
Protoss 38%
Terran 29%
Zerg 25%
Random 8%
Top 100
Terran 42%
Protoss 31%
Zerg 25%
Random 2%
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140559
3) Several progamers, naming WhiteRa, Idra, Artosis, Tester, to name a few, complaining about terran units / combos or general completeness of the terran race and how that is a great advantage. How many are there complaining about protoss? Or zerg?
The sources are interviews done to them, after which none or one patch as come out. I can look for them if needed.
What more do people want?
Statistics from B.net would only be useful if only accouting for the top ranking players, because all lower level statistics would mess up any point we might be trying to make.
In conclusion for the people consistently bashing on others for not providing proof of imabalance. Well let me end by saying that for me, all non-mirror matchups are imbalanced until evidence in contrary. That's the way to look at the problem and not the other way around. The question is which direction it points, and at this time, based on lots of factors, some of which presented above, we can say with pretty confidence it lies on terran's side for all the matchups.
|
Actually since statistical probability says that all match ups most likely ARE imbalanced the assumption should be that they are and proof should be required they are not.
|
United Kingdom12042 Posts
Top 5000
Protoss 38%
Terran 29%
Zerg 25%
Random 8%
Top 100
Terran 42%
Protoss 31%
Zerg 25%
Random 2%
Actually, looking at those numbers it is infact pretty balanced.
A surefire imbalance would be 20% more or less higher than another race, but that doesn't mean the top race is too strong, it means the bottom race is too weak.
I don't think the way to fix this is to nerf Terran, I think they need to buff zerg.
|
personally I'd be happy if there would be a cap on mules per OC. Zerg gets punished for not injecting larvae non stop, so does Protoss to an extent, because chrono boosts cannot be stacked.
If you can only have 1 MULE per OC, bad macro would be punished, or, to see the bright side: good terrans with solid macro would surpass mediocre players by far, and wouldn't have to face accusations of laming all the time.
I also agree on bunker changes and Viking range reduction. It's just so hard to deal with a meching terran before ultras are out, and tanks/thors/marauders are on the field just so much faster.
|
While I agree with the OP on almost everything, I think it would be better for everyone if the macro mechanics could become easier rather than harder. Instead of making MULEing more of a chore, why not just let Zergs spawn larvae by control grouping a queen and a hatchery and doing it by clicking on the icon? Why not let Ts chronoboost in a similar way?
And yes, I know that it's little things like this that set the nubs apart from the pros, but I believe that the skill ceiling for a game should not rely on performing repetitious tasks like remembering to spawn larvae exactly every 40 seconds.
|
For zerg to remotely competative again needs
1) better scouting - like providing overlords ith statring speed - having to reasearch speed in overlords is like having to reasearch move on marines is hilarius + more armor wont hurt either cause their literally practise targets for any air unit.
2) better aa Defences either with buffing queens aa capabilities or erlier access to aa static dfences
3) rework infestors , atm its the only caster unit thats gimped after energy depletion.
ghost autoshoot and Ht becoming Archons , infestors do nothing , maybe it was by designcause Np was permanent which is no more.
Either give autoattack and more amror or give them much higher mana regeneration.
also Np should be buffed to 25+ seconds
4)End game zerg units vs bcs or carriers , no contest here , zerg units are the only ones who cannot shoot air and ground simultanesly and require diferent air or ground top tier units.
also ultras and broodlords dont come even remotly close the he sheer power of bcs or upgraded carriers and their costs are similar - almost-
5) Creep becoming a liability every smart player kills creep lately which translates to zerg for wasted energy or even resources .
the whole old mechanic to upgrade to lair and so on when the other 2 races using modern rts mechanics is an issue as well which is flawd by design.
I dont rly get it how after 7 months of beta such obvious imbalances have to occur.
|
I've posted a few times in here but failed to aswer to the OP lol
There is a decision beetween MULE and scan that can be game changing. Given that Terran has the hardest time expanding i think it is fair in the late game to MULE up an expansion as it is far more likely to get shut down.
Supply D lowering/lifting to cost energy? Would there be a more underused macro-mechanic? Use it 2,3 times in the begining and that is it. Would be verry bad disign.
Bunker revision
I think it comes down to this "Bunker Salvage isn't being used in the way Blizzard (primarily) intended them. They're not an element in leapfrogging mid and lategame terran pushes."
I think Blizz wants this to work and will wait to see if it does and if not they will change them to make it work. I think they imagine this as the core of a bio build. This i think can be a good thing, makeing bio better vs zerg(baneling/infestor resistent) would give the MU a new dimension.
Decrease the anti-air range of either the thor or the viking
The Viking needs the range do deal with Colossus, BC, Broodlord, Carrier. So a big no-no to lowering the range.
The Thor anti air could be named Anti Muta (but it is not a hard counter) as it is unseless vs anything else. If the dmg remains the same i see no reason not to lower the range. TBH though, i think it is more likely we will see a dmg reconfiguration (same dmg to light, more dmg to armored)
Give marauders' concussive shells a cooldown timer (like the stalker blink).
Reduce the duration of the effect/ increese the cost for the upgrade/ etc but cooldown no-no. It would have to be a verry small cooldown and that would have no effect apart from the marauder rush (wich can be dealt with an increese in cost).
Lower the heal rate. 13.5hp/sec is really high.
"My main beef is the largely undiscovered potential of medivac drop play. " Things are dealt with when they arrive.
VS. Zerg is bio a problem? I think not. VS. Protoss, Medivacs are countered by feedback brutaly and Terran can EMP (not used often for some reason but it is great)
|
On August 04 2010 21:56 st3roids wrote:
2) better aa Defences either with buffing queens aa capabilities or erlier access to aa static dfences
Seriously? You can get spore colonies after evo chambers. That's the exact same speed as the other races. Queens are great AA, have long range and if you have groups of them they stop most early air pushes.
I'd be happy with the match-up if Infestors could cast all spells while burrowed.
|
Given that Terran has the hardest time expanding
Uhm... Why?
The Viking needs the range do deal with Colossus, BC, Broodlord, Carrier. So a big no-no to lowering the range.
But it's completly fine for the more expensive, less variable and alltogether just worse Corruptor to fly over the enemy army to deal with the all the treads you point out up there?
VS. Zerg is bio a problem
Biodrops into crowded places behind Minerals are a problem, but i agree, i don't see Medivacs as one of the big problems.
|
|
|
I agree that terran may not be altered. To balance things out. Simply Zerg should be buffed maybe a little toss too so the balance between ZvP is kept.
I think roach warren should be swaped with hydralisk den. So you can get AA decent range unit before lair. This can be usefull dealing with non cloaked banshees,hellion harash and drops.
Maybe hydra will need to be a bit nerfed, If it come out to be unbalanced in early game. Roach is 2 supply and is lurker equivalent in BW. while ling and hydralisk should be same as BW. Lacking long enought range units early in game make zerg defensive and passive, zerg need timing window same way that Protoss has with 4 gate and terran with the 3 rax reaper.
|
On August 04 2010 22:33 Ainsworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 21:56 st3roids wrote:
2) better aa Defences either with buffing queens aa capabilities or erlier access to aa static dfences
Seriously? You can get spore colonies after evo chambers. That's the exact same speed as the other races. Queens are great AA, have long range and if you have groups of them they stop most early air pushes. I'd be happy with the match-up if Infestors could cast all spells while burrowed.
srsly u start with marines , toss can have stalkers pretty fast as well , i need evo to have static defences though and upgrade to lair expand and hydralisk den to have the first aa unit , get a clue imo .
hyd den should swap with roaches i agree with that speedlings and banelings are more than enough to handle bio mm push and hydras with the current state isnt qualified for all the fuss aka expand + hydralisk den to mid game first aa unit , is just not worth it .
|
[B]On August 04 2010 22:28 Sapphire.lux wrote:Given that Terran has the hardest time expanding i think it is fair in the late game to MULE up an expansion as it is far more likely to get shut down. Yea, it must be tough defending those late game expansions as Terran with 0-supply Planetary Fortresses, bunkers, and turrets. The other races have it so much easier.
|
On August 04 2010 22:28 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I've posted a few times in here but failed to aswer to the OP lol
There is a decision beetween MULE and scan that can be game changing. Given that Terran has the hardest time expanding i think it is fair in the late game to MULE up an expansion as it is far more likely to get shut down.
Supply D lowering/lifting to cost energy? Would there be a more underused macro-mechanic? Use it 2,3 times in the begining and that is it. Would be verry bad disign.
Bunker revision
I think it comes down to this "Bunker Salvage isn't being used in the way Blizzard (primarily) intended them. They're not an element in leapfrogging mid and lategame terran pushes."
I think Blizz wants this to work and will wait to see if it does and if not they will change them to make it work. I think they imagine this as the core of a bio build. This i think can be a good thing, makeing bio better vs zerg(baneling/infestor resistent) would give the MU a new dimension.
Decrease the anti-air range of either the thor or the viking
The Viking needs the range do deal with Colossus, BC, Broodlord, Carrier. So a big no-no to lowering the range.
The Thor anti air could be named Anti Muta (but it is not a hard counter) as it is unseless vs anything else. If the dmg remains the same i see no reason not to lower the range. TBH though, i think it is more likely we will see a dmg reconfiguration (same dmg to light, more dmg to armored)
Give marauders' concussive shells a cooldown timer (like the stalker blink).
Reduce the duration of the effect/ increese the cost for the upgrade/ etc but cooldown no-no. It would have to be a verry small cooldown and that would have no effect apart from the marauder rush (wich can be dealt with an increese in cost).
Lower the heal rate. 13.5hp/sec is really high.
"My main beef is the largely undiscovered potential of medivac drop play. " Things are dealt with when they arrive.
VS. Zerg is bio a problem? I think not. VS. Protoss, Medivacs are countered by feedback brutaly and Terran can EMP (not used often for some reason but it is great)
wow very nice post, i agree with all u said
|
United Kingdom12042 Posts
I think one problem with removing bunker salvage is the fact that, once you empty a bunker to move forward, unless you fill it with units, it's just sat there and can't do anything unless it's filled, unlike cannons which can still shoot and spore crawlers which can uproot and move. Bunkers are just then an empty shell of a building which can't do anything.
Maybe they should make it so Salvage only gives back 75%? That way, you're still losing some minerals, but not too much. Don't forget, for a bunker to have full power, you need 200 minerals worth of units shooting out of it. Which late game, isn't viable as you need those units with your army.
EDIT: Have zergs tried to use Corruption from the Corrupter to force the tanks to either unsiege or make them die a hell of a lot quicker?
|
And exactly what prohibts player from filling that bunker , its the most epxensive but shoots both air and ground let alone it can snare as well if ti has marauder in it plus u can repair it
o and now all this is free
|
United Kingdom12042 Posts
I'm just saying, that unlike the other base defenses, bunkers can't move and once it's used it's purpose, it's just stuck there (it'll probably never fire again), as it'll more than likely be in a place you won't want to fill as you've got more control over the map.
Also, when going Bio against a 4 warpgate rush, bunkers are really nessecary to help defend, I've used like, three bunkers to help defend against one to keep my marines alive longer, but once I've defended, I move out and then there'd just be three or so bunkers sat there unable to do anything.
It should have some Salvage Cost, but it shouldn't be too high. Maybe 50% would be a fair number as that's only 50 minerals.
|
On August 04 2010 21:27 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +Top 5000
Protoss 38%
Terran 29%
Zerg 25%
Random 8%
Top 100
Terran 42%
Protoss 31%
Zerg 25%
Random 2% Actually, looking at those numbers it is infact pretty balanced. A surefire imbalance would be 20% more or less higher than another race, but that doesn't mean the top race is too strong, it means the bottom race is too weak. I don't think the way to fix this is to nerf Terran, I think they need to buff zerg.
Why 20%? Why not 10%? Why not 15%?
If they buff Zerg then Protoss is going to be extremely underpowered in ZvP. The best fix for Terran is to nerf the Marauder, something I've been saying since like, day 2 of the beta. I think a Thor range drop would be great, though I find using muta/ling vs. Thor + Tanks and/or Bio to be pretty effective (banes w/ the bio build).
Maybe if they even reduced the Reaper damage or remove the added damage vs light. Those things are ridiculous to deal with early game until you get a few roaches, and the best case scenario is if your opponent expands too fast or loses their reapers without doing much damage.
Even though my win/loss ratio is probably pretty even on the ladder with regards to ZvT, it feels like I'm playing an uphill battle from the very start. There is no "harass factor" in ZvT because there's no real easy way to penetrate the Terran when you're still catching up with drones.
|
On August 04 2010 22:55 Qikz wrote:
EDIT: Have zergs tried to use Corruption from the Corrupter to force the tanks to either unsiege or make them die a hell of a lot quicker?
Let's say he has 10 tanks towards the lategame.
He probably has some vikings and marines.
Now you are spending 1,5k mins/1k gas/20psi to not counter the tanks, but to just make them take 20% extra dmg.
And then I have these corruptors flying around who aren't doing a thing untill I morph them into Bl's locking me into air, since I'll need even more corruptors now or hydra's to protect them.
no ty, for that amount I'd rather get 5 ultra's who are 1,5k/1k/30psi
Corruption is a spell that is nice to do when you need to get coruptors, but not a reason to get them.
Maybe someone proves me wrong and can somehow show me that the 20% dmg taken is in someway worth it to get corruptors, but I really doubt it.
|
I think it would help new players to properly identify the Medivac as a priority target based on the way it looks. I think changing the model with a fresh coat of School Bus Yellow would do wonders in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
