|
On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm.
There's a bunch of eu zergs that win the weekly tournies just as often as others. Lans: GSLS, asembly, code a champion just now etcetc. It's just silly that ppl say "zerg doesnt win anything".
Even on the ladder's top 100 1/3 is zerg so whats up
|
On April 09 2011 05:43 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 05:10 Endorsed wrote:On April 09 2011 04:53 Tschis wrote:On April 09 2011 04:46 Endorsed wrote:
Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just look at protoss, for months they were just doing stupid, stupid shit in both PvT and PvZ. Protoss was actually the least accomplished race for a while. Every terran in the world was like, when protoss figures out a way to not die to stim timings, they will dominate so hard. Because every once in a while we met a protoss who didn't die to those stim timings and we'd get into late game. :/ Anyway imba cries by protoss all around the world. and what happens? blizzard keeps nerfing toss, there has been zero buffs that had any real impact on the state of TvP. But suddenly the 30 percent winrate of PvT in the gsl has turned into a 70 percent winrate. Maybe, there aren't alot of good zergs because it's just harder to play, or maybe they haven't figured out ZvP, maybe there is an imbalance. We don't know, we probably never will. 0 buffs for Protoss but Terran has been consistently nerfed at some points, like Stim and Bunker time. //tx ya the bunker time definitely made it so protoss went from a 30 percent winrate pvt to 70 i see. also Stim is recent, protoss were pwning terrans/zergs before 1.3. Just look up the previous GSL and GSTL. There were probably more buffs to terran, like the battle cruiser and the thor buff wich made bigger difference then the bunker and stim time increase rofl. Because Protoss was buffed in the previous patch. Contrary to what you said, that Toss got 0 buffs. Void Rays got buffed, Phoenix build time was decreased, Observer price was decreased. I think I only heard of 1-2 games where Battlecruisers were used against Toss after 1.3, so it's not like it changed the outcome of this MU drastically (I might be wrong). A lot of T victories were obtained with timing attacks, just like Protoss is doing now, and the key timing of Stim was very important. //tx
I never said they got 0 buffs, I said they were all insignificant. Only the phoenix buff had any effect, void rays was actually a nerf/buff kinda thing, they are stronger against marines when not charged, but weaker when charged. Wich helps against 3 gate star all ins. The 30 seconds doesn't change anything about the stim timing atacks. They were already figured out, and even then. If you still wanna do a stim timing, you just go stim before concussive, etc. It doesn't really change anything, other then that all ins of toss are harder to stop. Trying to do any damage to a protoss early on with a stim timing is 9/10 of the time just suicide because of how good protoss have become at sentry control.
|
On April 09 2011 05:15 hugman wrote:
I bet that if you keep talking about MKP's sexuality someone's going to post in on PlayXP and then he's going to read it and become even more insecure.
Well, I hope ge doesn't feel insecure about, whether he's straight or gay.
I've been asked out by plenty of guys, and I'm as straight as can be. It just means I'm reasonably good looking, friendly and have interesting opinions on art and clothes. Ain't nothing to be ashamed of!
|
On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm.
Well to be honest for the first week after the Roach Range buff there was a pretty large amount of whining about Zergs for the first week but that's about it I guess.
|
On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm.
I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced.
For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced?
Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X.
|
On April 09 2011 05:43 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 05:10 Endorsed wrote:On April 09 2011 04:53 Tschis wrote:On April 09 2011 04:46 Endorsed wrote:
Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just look at protoss, for months they were just doing stupid, stupid shit in both PvT and PvZ. Protoss was actually the least accomplished race for a while. Every terran in the world was like, when protoss figures out a way to not die to stim timings, they will dominate so hard. Because every once in a while we met a protoss who didn't die to those stim timings and we'd get into late game. :/ Anyway imba cries by protoss all around the world. and what happens? blizzard keeps nerfing toss, there has been zero buffs that had any real impact on the state of TvP. But suddenly the 30 percent winrate of PvT in the gsl has turned into a 70 percent winrate. Maybe, there aren't alot of good zergs because it's just harder to play, or maybe they haven't figured out ZvP, maybe there is an imbalance. We don't know, we probably never will. 0 buffs for Protoss but Terran has been consistently nerfed at some points, like Stim and Bunker time. //tx ya the bunker time definitely made it so protoss went from a 30 percent winrate pvt to 70 i see. also Stim is recent, protoss were pwning terrans/zergs before 1.3. Just look up the previous GSL and GSTL. There were probably more buffs to terran, like the battle cruiser and the thor buff wich made bigger difference then the bunker and stim time increase rofl. Because Protoss was buffed in the previous patch. Contrary to what you said, that Toss got 0 buffs. Void Rays got buffed, Phoenix build time was decreased, Observer price was decreased. I think I only heard of 1-2 games where Battlecruisers were used against Toss after 1.3, so it's not like it changed the outcome of this MU drastically (I might be wrong). A lot of T victories were obtained with timing attacks, just like Protoss is doing now, and the key timing of Stim was very important. //tx
I don't think Battlecruisers have been fully explored yet. I've been messing around with BC builds and they have huge, huge potential. They're really fast now. The only real problem is that surviving the BC transition is a little bit iffy. But I think we'll eventually figure out a way to work BCs in. I really like the BC as a unit in an end game army.
|
On April 09 2011 05:16 Ribbon wrote:I'm going to make a UMS version of Tal'Darim Altar with a bunch of balance changes. The ones I have in mind are + Show Spoiler +
Terran
- No Change for now; no one's bitching about Terran
Protoss
- Put KA back in, have it increase starting energy to 65. Common request
- Change Colo Damage to 15x2 to 7(+7 to light)x2. This means Colossi are ever so slightly less good against Hydra, but are more importantly really bad against roaches, and don't rape infestors.
-Carrier build time decreased to 100, shields increased to 250. Carriers need buffs generally.
Edit: Sentry ground attack decreased from 6 to 4. A rush to FF the ramp requires a sentry-based army, so this would have a notable effect nerfing it, while still having FF be useful for it's intended purpose.
Zerg
-Overlord Speed Available from hatch, and costs 50/50.
-Overlords, Overseers and Queens get a slight speed buff. Both this and the above are things Idra's suggested.
-Queen ground attack changed from 4x2 to 6x2. I just think Queens need a use in a fight. It makes Zerg a tiny bit safer, but I just kind of like it.
-Nydus Worm cost decreased to 50/50 to encourage their use
-Ultralisk costs changed from 300/200 to 200/300. Making lategame things mineral light and gas heavy encourages Z to take a lot of bases (as they were talking about in SOTG)
-To account for their increased cost, Ultralisks now have +100 HP. They will also have a speed increase (or an upgrade like in BW) so they can't just be kited.
-Finally, Adrenal Glands decreases Zergling attack cooldown to 0.480, about doubling it's effect. This makes Crack a better and more dramatic upgrade, and makes things like Nydus Worms and Drops a lot scarier
It'd be pretty interesting if we could get some higher level (even just "Masters League") players to do a decent number of ZvPs with these changes, and see what it ACTUALLY does to balance.
With those changes Terran would just go mass Marauder / Medivac against P every game. Colossi would do nothing against them. Plus I think that's way too many changes to make at once.
|
On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced. For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced? Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X.
I can't believe this, but I actually agree. The utility and strength of corrupters seem disproportionate to the cost.
|
On April 09 2011 06:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 05:15 hugman wrote:
I bet that if you keep talking about MKP's sexuality someone's going to post in on PlayXP and then he's going to read it and become even more insecure. Well, I hope ge doesn't feel insecure about, whether he's straight or gay. I've been asked out by plenty of guys, and I'm as straight as can be. It just means I'm reasonably good looking, friendly and have interesting opinions on art and clothes. Ain't nothing to be ashamed of!
The story of my life. It just make girls wonder. And that's always a good thing.
|
On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:
Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X.
Wow, I never knew the numbers were so skewed. That's pretty insane.
|
On April 09 2011 07:37 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:
Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X. Wow, I never knew the numbers were so skewed. That's pretty insane.
I remember Artosis and IdrA thinking outloud on the ImBalanced! show about giving the Corrupters the Corruption spell, just so they would have more utility.
Currently, all Protoss army really needs to worry about when engaging corruptors with Collosus is wiping out the Zerg ground army with their Collossus and gateway units before their Collosus die. After that, the Corrupters have very little use until Zerg has the greater spire, and even then broodlords are insanely expensive and vulnerable to any anti-air the toss has.
I actually think the unique balancing and constant modification of army compositions is what makes PvZ interesting. But right now, Corrupters are only useful against mass, mass air of any race, and as a hard counter to Collosus. Even mass mutas are better against Vikings than Corrupters
I wonder what would happen if Corruptors were even marginally cheaper, like 125/100. At least you'd be able to add a couple of spines for defense.
Or what would happen if Zerg said 'fuck-it' to Corruptors entirely and just went with more Mutas. At least Mutas are versatile enough to harass with, and slow down a push. I find it's easier to dictate when and where an engagement will happen with Mutas (bear in mind I play against really shitty players, so I have no idea).
|
On April 09 2011 07:55 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 07:37 Nakas wrote:On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:
Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X. Wow, I never knew the numbers were so skewed. That's pretty insane. I remember Artosis and IdrA thinking outloud on the ImBalanced! show about giving the Corrupters the Corruption spell, just so they would have more utility. Currently, all Protoss army really needs to worry about when engaging corruptors with Collosus is wiping out the Zerg ground army with their Collossus and gateway units before their Collosus die. After that, the Corrupters have very little use until Zerg has the greater spire, and even then broodlords are insanely expensive and vulnerable to any anti-air the toss has. I actually think the unique balancing and constant modification of army compositions is what makes PvZ interesting. But right now, Corrupters are only useful against mass, mass air of any race, and as a hard counter to Collosus. Even mass mutas are better against Vikings than Corrupters I wonder what would happen if Corruptors were even marginally cheaper, like 125/100. At least you'd be able to add a couple of spines for defense. Or what would happen if Zerg said 'fuck-it' to Corruptors entirely and just went with more Mutas. At least Mutas are versatile enough to harass with, and slow down a push. I find it's easier to dictate when and where an engagement will happen with Mutas (bear in mind I play against really shitty players, so I have no idea).
mutas won't work vs a deathball because they are can not take any damage at all. And consider that you are pretty much always straight over the stalkers to engage the colossi. For mutas to work you need to have a way of making a lot of them and not die to any timing push , but they might be more viable in general now that the amulet is removed ( at least thats what i think :D )
|
|
|
Interesting to hear IdrA actually fingered him on stage while HuK was dropping from the game.
|
On April 09 2011 08:45 nvs. wrote:
Interesting to hear IdrA actually fingered him on stage while HuK was dropping from the game.
"fingered" and "gave him the finger" are 2 completely different expressions, you might want to check what you are trying to communicate xD.
Idra is my hero for giving huk the finger....
|
On April 09 2011 08:45 nvs. wrote:
Interesting to hear IdrA actually fingered him on stage while HuK was dropping from the game.
Did Huk enjoy it?
On a more serious note, Huk is trolling the shit out of this situation. It seems alot of people are reading alot more emotion into Idra's comments than there actually is. Telling someone to fuck off is atleast in my eyes, not a sign of anger and rage, but something you say if you're fed up. He probably just wanted a quiet game.
Fans of both players are taking this way to seriously.
Just my two cents.
|
United States15275 Posts
On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced. For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced? Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X.
Corruptors are a good unit that lack any viable use in ZvT and ZvP. They were plainly meant to counter massive units. The problem is they don't counter any other air units in general. Vikings can kite them for eternity; phoenixes just run away; void rays slaughter them with superior DPS and bonus damage against armor; banshees run away and have cloak; ravens are safe with PDD; medivacs don't roam around by themselves. At the highest levels of play massive air units simply not worth the cost and build time to build in bulk, while Colossi are always with the main army. At least Vikings can land if your army is outnumbered but Corruptors? They don't seem to fit into a composition: you either make enough for the sole purpose of taking out one unit (Colossi) or you overmake them for guaranteed victory.
|
On April 09 2011 06:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 05:15 hugman wrote:
I bet that if you keep talking about MKP's sexuality someone's going to post in on PlayXP and then he's going to read it and become even more insecure. Well, I hope ge doesn't feel insecure about, whether he's straight or gay. I've been asked out by plenty of guys, and I'm as straight as can be. It just means I'm reasonably good looking, friendly and have interesting opinions on art and clothes. Ain't nothing to be ashamed of!
I've heard that koreans are very homophobic despite their seemingly "fruity" type manner. It's not uncommon for korean celebrities to be very insecure about themselves due to cruelty by the korean netizens and even resort to suicide. Of course MKP probably wont if someone calls him gay . . . but just saying
|
On April 09 2011 09:09 thezergk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 06:01 Defacer wrote:On April 09 2011 05:15 hugman wrote:
I bet that if you keep talking about MKP's sexuality someone's going to post in on PlayXP and then he's going to read it and become even more insecure. Well, I hope ge doesn't feel insecure about, whether he's straight or gay. I've been asked out by plenty of guys, and I'm as straight as can be. It just means I'm reasonably good looking, friendly and have interesting opinions on art and clothes. Ain't nothing to be ashamed of! I've heard that koreans are very homophobic despite their seemingly "fruity" type manner. It's not uncommon for korean celebrities to be very insecure about themselves due to cruelty by the korean netizens and even resort to suicide. Of course MKP probably wont if someone calls him gay . . . but just saying
unless im missing something, how does being emotional = gay? i thought we were past that kind of generalisation.
|
On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm.
Don't think that is quite true, with the win/loss part. At the time 1.3 was going to be released, Naniwa leaked a bunch of stuff that shouldn't have been leaked, including win/loss rates of "top EU players" (w.e that means), it showed that the top EU Zerg averaged a 55% win ratio against top EU Protoss...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
