On May 18 2013 08:17 Bagi wrote: Also try hallucinating a phoenix sometimes.
Protoss has many problems but I don't think the ability the scout is one of them, not in HOTS.
Yeah, you can get a full scout of your enemy base by the time warpgate is done with hallu phoenix (may not be best to use your sentry energy that early, but it's still possible)... Definitely can't complain about Protoss scouting in HotS...
So many trolls. My final question is not whether you have an obs. Its where you are producing the obs from.
I agree the question that I'm returning to is that Toss seem to be losing. I conjectured that the problem is vision, not actually unit composition and armies, hence why phoenix play seems so strong. In conjunction with collossus. The reason why they lose vision, is that right now you have to choose collossus or vision. I conjectured how to test that hypothesis, at the highest level you can test whether having vision from another building you can still effectively combat and the highest level would be more even.
Do you happen to have a different conjecture on why toss seem to be losing more often at the highest level?
Why is this a problem? You can hallucinate phoenixs to scout on just gateway tech, and can get detection in some shape from both robo and stargate techs. There's really nothing wrong with protoss detection and scouting, and I'd hazard a guess that scouting is not why protoss have not been doing well lately at the highest level.
Also observers or colossus has been a "problem" for protoss since release. Even when protoss players were enjoying great success, this issue still existed. So I don't think you can point to that being a problem now.
Interesting statement, "Also observers or colossus has been a "problem" for protoss since release. Even when protoss players were enjoying great success" In reviewing the vods, could I ask what time you felt like toss was enjoying great success? (such that I can come up with a better conjecture as to why toss seems to be less on top right now.)
I currently view the protoss winrate disparity vs terran. At what time do you think that protoss enjoyed great success vs. terran?
Like I think that terran just kind of keeps marines until the toss chooses his tech then he counters it. The problem with sentries is you cannot use to much energy to scout for drops without fear of dying. If the terran sees templar tech- ghosts, if not vikings. I think that toss has to be able to put down both a robo and a another tech and be safe. once he gets the robo he has to use it to build units. Having the twilight produce observer or observer like units would allow them to scout before choosing collossus, phoenixes, and archons to be more specific.
I still would appreciate another hypothesis as I've been watching games taking notes it appears that the terran uses the medivacs to scout the toss army and can do mass damage, while the toss has a slow army that requires solid scouting to slow down drop play. Each time I see a toss die, it feels to me like they were just a little to far out of position to react properly in time or they didn't try to take a third at the same time as the terran and couldn't keep up economically.
It seems like terran can take the third more quickly and the toss has to stay a bit longer on two bases to adequately defend once medivac play starts. I think that toss could take a quicker third if they knew a little bit more about what is going on in the game. Thus players who practice against each other are familiar with they're harass styles and the game appears balanced, but when it comes to a different player its just different enough that their harass styles will beat them. (Innovation imba) Its hard to get sentries to respond to drop play, they are slow and die easily, and I still feel even though hallucinations help scout at that time they are already dead.
For the 10 first minutes of the game you have a good tool to hold aggression, it's the momma core. Medivacs, even if they can come sooner, normally can hit you by minute 9-10. Anything faster is normally a cheese or something that relies on doing damage to pay off or sets the terran behind, that you should had scouted either poking momma core, using a hallu phoenix or observers (scout armory, win game). You won't die because you halluci a phoenix against nothing a terran can field against you if you can react properly due to scouting.
Awesome show - Thank you JP, Incontrol, Nony, and David Kim for all doing a great job
I think David made some good points and it is always a huge plus to hear right from one the "big men" themselves and their thoughts on the game. It's clear that David and Blizzard are watching and I think it's very good, as others have said, that they are not going out there making drastic changes left and right - but rather waiting to see how things work out.
Gained some great respect for David Kim walking into that lion's den. I especially loved when he said if you want to blame the fault of balance blame me and if you want to congratulate it, thank the whole balance team.
geoff's point bout the hellbat drop is as clear as they come, it has good burst vs workers, on top of that aoe, its durable and its gets healed from medivacs, theres no draw backs compared to say a marine drop which have low durability and no aoe, and a hellion drop which doesnt have the benefit of being healed, kim is obviously trying to avoid talking bout the hellbat being op.
Thank you JP, Nony, Incontrol and David Kim. Very interesting show last night!! If JP can continue to bring these kind of guests to stotg it will always have a special place in my Iphone <3
Kinda stupid opinion of Blizzard to focus only on offense (which is an important part of the game) to such an extent that it is almost impossible to defend against them without sacrificing a lot and gimping yourself in the process.
The Mothership Core can only be "strong" against a drop if it is alive and if it is near the Nexus that gets dropped and if it has energy enough to cast the Nexus Cannon. Sure it can be strong, but there is only one of them ...
Gogo Geoff! Get them to change the bunkers again!
Too bad Tyler didnt get to ask about Carriers again ...
That was a really good episode. I like restating the point that balance is as much about who is playing and what the players do as the actual units. Carriers and oracles are very good up against swarm hosts, even just a Mothership with cloaking field can defend against locusts. Though it takes a pro player to try something different/find some success before it becomes accepted. There can be drastic changes in views on balance without any actual changes to the game.
The only part of the show that had me raise an eyebrow was here :
when he said (if I understood correctly) he'd be ready to let a matchup stagnate at say 55/45 winrate as long as it's entertaining to watch. As a spectator, I can only partly agree with that, of course I want a nice show but I also want to think I'm watching a balanced game (I know it can never be perfect but I'd at least expect it to try and tend towards that 50/50 and not let it stagnate for the show).
But if I were a pro starcraft player and if winning matches is what helps me pay the bills, hearing this kind of thing (i.e. based on which race I've been playing the past x years, I might start with a disadvantage) would irritate me badly. I don't understand why JP, Geoff or Nony didn't react to it...or did I misunderstand it all ?
On May 18 2013 19:49 Eurekastreet wrote: The only part of the show that had me raise an eyebrow was here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEB03FD11B7640195&feature=player_detailpage&v=YfyolVb8tmo#t=1639s when he said (if I understood correctly) he'd be ready to let a matchup stagnate at say 55/45 winrate as long as it's entertaining to watch. As a spectator, I can only partly agree with that, of course I want a nice show but I also want to think I'm watching a balanced game (I know it can never be perfect but I'd at least expect it to try and tend towards that 50/50 and not let it stagnate for the show).
But if I were a pro starcraft player and if winning matches is what helps me pay the bills, hearing this kind of thing (i.e. based on which race I've been playing the past x years, I might start with a disadvantage) would irritate me badly. I don't understand why JP, Geoff or Nony didn't react to it...or did I misunderstand it all ?
55/45 is a very balanced game, especially when these percentages are changing all the time. If the percentages are stuck then more than likely the gameplay is stuck and therefore the viewing experience dull. So that gives blizzard incentive to change something.
Yes indeed. Hearing it raised my eyebrow a little too at first, but keep in mind that he is almost exclusively talking about tournament games, not the entire masters/GM ladder. That means that there is a lot more diversity in the matches, and the sample size is a lot smaller. Therefore a ±5% margin of error is more than acceptable if the games are entertaining.
On May 18 2013 19:49 Eurekastreet wrote: The only part of the show that had me raise an eyebrow was here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEB03FD11B7640195&feature=player_detailpage&v=YfyolVb8tmo#t=1639s when he said (if I understood correctly) he'd be ready to let a matchup stagnate at say 55/45 winrate as long as it's entertaining to watch. As a spectator, I can only partly agree with that, of course I want a nice show but I also want to think I'm watching a balanced game (I know it can never be perfect but I'd at least expect it to try and tend towards that 50/50 and not let it stagnate for the show).
But if I were a pro starcraft player and if winning matches is what helps me pay the bills, hearing this kind of thing (i.e. based on which race I've been playing the past x years, I might start with a disadvantage) would irritate me badly. I don't understand why JP, Geoff or Nony didn't react to it...or did I misunderstand it all ?
55/45 is a very balanced game, especially when these percentages are changing all the time. If the percentages are stuck then more than likely the gameplay is stuck and therefore the viewing experience dull. So that gives blizzard incentive to change something.
Ok, I understood it differently. (I think) I don't mind a very balanced game going towards 50/50.
I think it's the unit composition that for me makes a game dull or not, e.g. I watched hundreds of infestor+broodlords matches and never got tired of it (even though I guess it was kind of stuck at the end of wol, I didn't mind)
On the other hand I watched 5-6 matches involving mass swarm hosts and as a spectator I so far find them very dull...but that's kind of subjective, some people like certain strategies, some prefer others (I like to watch cheesy games for examples, 6 pools, choochoos, etc, whereas some people hate to watch those).
But I would expect blizz to focus on try and make the game stats "perfectly" balanced, or at least work towards it and David Kim seems to hint it's not always the priority, i.e. they'd be ready to sacrifice a tiny bit of balancing if it makes for a better show. As a spec, I guess it's like choosing between pest and cholera, I can understand both pov, but again if I were a pro player, I'm not sure I'd be totally happy with that approach.
Edit : I also understand they can't do changes /patch the game too often, that'd irritate people, and that the metagame sometimes can move faster than blizzard design team, so I'm not sure "my" approach is a feasable one (I don't know how hard mr Kim's work is but it must be damn complicated), but thought I'd mention it (maybe it's been discussed somewhere else on the forums already...?)
On May 18 2013 19:49 Eurekastreet wrote: The only part of the show that had me raise an eyebrow was here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEB03FD11B7640195&feature=player_detailpage&v=YfyolVb8tmo#t=1639s when he said (if I understood correctly) he'd be ready to let a matchup stagnate at say 55/45 winrate as long as it's entertaining to watch. As a spectator, I can only partly agree with that, of course I want a nice show but I also want to think I'm watching a balanced game (I know it can never be perfect but I'd at least expect it to try and tend towards that 50/50 and not let it stagnate for the show).
But if I were a pro starcraft player and if winning matches is what helps me pay the bills, hearing this kind of thing (i.e. based on which race I've been playing the past x years, I might start with a disadvantage) would irritate me badly. I don't understand why JP, Geoff or Nony didn't react to it...or did I misunderstand it all ?
55/45 is a very balanced game, especially when these percentages are changing all the time. If the percentages are stuck then more than likely the gameplay is stuck and therefore the viewing experience dull. So that gives blizzard incentive to change something.
Ok, I understood it differently. (I think) I don't mind a very balanced game going towards 50/50.
I think it's the unit composition that for me makes a game dull or not, e.g. I watched hundreds of infestor+broodlords matches and never got tired of it (even though I guess it was kind of stuck at the end of wol, I didn't mind)
On the other hand I watched 5-6 matches involving mass swarm hosts and as a spectator I so far find them very dull...but that's kind of subjective, some people like certain strategies, some prefer others (I like to watch cheesy games for examples, 6 pools, choochoos, etc, whereas some people hate to watch those).
But I would expect blizz to focus on try and make the game stats "perfectly" balanced, or at least work towards it and David Kim seems to hint it's not always the priority, i.e. they'd be ready to sacrifice a tiny bit of balancing if it makes for a better show. As a spec, I guess it's like choosing between pest and cholera, I can understand both pov, but again if I were a pro player, I'm not sure I'd be totally happy with that approach.
Edit : I also understand they can't do changes /patch the game too often, that'd irritate people, and that the metagame sometimes can move faster than blizzard design team, so I'm not sure "my" approach is a feasable one (I don't know how hard mr Kim's work is but it must be damn complicated), but thought I'd mention it (maybe it's been discussed somewhere else on the forums already...?)
The only way for a game to ever have 50/50 balance is if there's only 2 races or maybe even just one. Even in BW I'd say that 50/50 balance would have been impossible to achieve and I think the majority of the time (depending on maps and what have you) that the balance was closer to 45/55 than it was ever to 50/50.
On May 18 2013 19:49 Eurekastreet wrote: The only part of the show that had me raise an eyebrow was here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEB03FD11B7640195&feature=player_detailpage&v=YfyolVb8tmo#t=1639s when he said (if I understood correctly) he'd be ready to let a matchup stagnate at say 55/45 winrate as long as it's entertaining to watch. As a spectator, I can only partly agree with that, of course I want a nice show but I also want to think I'm watching a balanced game (I know it can never be perfect but I'd at least expect it to try and tend towards that 50/50 and not let it stagnate for the show).
But if I were a pro starcraft player and if winning matches is what helps me pay the bills, hearing this kind of thing (i.e. based on which race I've been playing the past x years, I might start with a disadvantage) would irritate me badly. I don't understand why JP, Geoff or Nony didn't react to it...or did I misunderstand it all ?
55/45 is a very balanced game, especially when these percentages are changing all the time. If the percentages are stuck then more than likely the gameplay is stuck and therefore the viewing experience dull. So that gives blizzard incentive to change something.
Ok, I understood it differently. (I think) I don't mind a very balanced game going towards 50/50.
I think it's the unit composition that for me makes a game dull or not, e.g. I watched hundreds of infestor+broodlords matches and never got tired of it (even though I guess it was kind of stuck at the end of wol, I didn't mind)
On the other hand I watched 5-6 matches involving mass swarm hosts and as a spectator I so far find them very dull...but that's kind of subjective, some people like certain strategies, some prefer others (I like to watch cheesy games for examples, 6 pools, choochoos, etc, whereas some people hate to watch those).
But I would expect blizz to focus on try and make the game stats "perfectly" balanced, or at least work towards it and David Kim seems to hint it's not always the priority, i.e. they'd be ready to sacrifice a tiny bit of balancing if it makes for a better show. As a spec, I guess it's like choosing between pest and cholera, I can understand both pov, but again if I were a pro player, I'm not sure I'd be totally happy with that approach.
Edit : I also understand they can't do changes /patch the game too often, that'd irritate people, and that the metagame sometimes can move faster than blizzard design team, so I'm not sure "my" approach is a feasable one (I don't know how hard mr Kim's work is but it must be damn complicated), but thought I'd mention it (maybe it's been discussed somewhere else on the forums already...?)
The only way for a game to ever have 50/50 balance is if there's only 2 races or maybe even just one. Even in BW I'd say that 50/50 balance would have been impossible to achieve and I think the majority of the time (depending on maps and what have you) that the balance was closer to 45/55 than it was ever to 50/50.
If there was only one map in the whole of sc2 that you could tweak I think you could come close to perfectly balance. It would make it very repetitive to watch though.
EPT
