|
On October 25 2010 13:53 SonicBoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 12:36 CagedMind wrote:
I haven't played much lately but is there actually a way for p to fe. The ones I seen before were horribly bad. I question this a lot.
One of my big problems in pvt was that t could expo easier then me. Watch NEXGenius Blizzcon replays, he fe'd against Select and Loner. 1 gateway expand followed by 3 gateways + robo usually. He lost to a stim timing push by Select due to close positions and an ineffective dt opening. lost 2 games to loner. Other than that, he dominated.
so 1 gateway FE loses to early push/rush
wins against later expansion/no rush/building 2 bunkers for defense(lol@loner... thrice)
what exactly does surprise you there?
|
On October 25 2010 15:07 Rea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 13:53 SonicBoom wrote:On October 25 2010 12:36 CagedMind wrote:
I haven't played much lately but is there actually a way for p to fe. The ones I seen before were horribly bad. I question this a lot.
One of my big problems in pvt was that t could expo easier then me. Watch NEXGenius Blizzcon replays, he fe'd against Select and Loner. 1 gateway expand followed by 3 gateways + robo usually. He lost to a stim timing push by Select due to close positions and an ineffective dt opening. lost 2 games to loner. Other than that, he dominated. so 1 gateway FE loses to early push/rush wins against later expansion/no rush/building 2 bunkers for defense(lol@loner... thrice) what exactly does surprise you there?
Nothing, he just said that Protoss - in fact - is able to FE.
|
1 gateway fe only loses to early pushes when the p's microing skills are minor to t's microing skills
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 25 2010 15:02 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 14:55 Sorook wrote:
What I don't understand is why shouldn't P t3 crush T t1. Should toss be able to punish T for building nothing but MMM? What the fuck are T supoosed to build? Battlecruisers? WE literally have nothing else
You also have Bashees, Ravens, Vikings, Siege tanks, Thors, Hellions, and Ghosts.
Also, yes, battlecruisers can be quite strong against protoss if you get a 3rd base rather than trying to win it on 2. Yamato cannon makes them very dominant against protoss air (VR 1 shotted, Carrier 2 shotted) and stalkers with blink are the only other unit toss can really fight BC's with. Raven/Banshee openings are strong against toss and transition easily into BC production once you have a 3rd.
|
Huh. huh. Concussive shells really allow for a lot of kiting. -.- 1 gate fe worked when loner allowed it. Every time I see a terran put on early pressure, the success/failure of that pressure seems more down to the terran than the toss' decisions. Without a FF & Ramp you're liable to get rolled over. Maybe on a much bigger map 1gate fe will be viable.
|
What do you think of concussive shells upgrade taking longer so you can have stalker actually scout the ramp.
Yeah 1gate fe was never a amazing idea. It's something you do not very often. Too easy for terran to crush it. I was asking in case someone figured out something wonky like mothership without the tech lol.
It's been a problems. Back in beta when I was training with msv I just couldn't find a good solution when he could either rush or safe fe or something else.
|
I once lost 12 carriers to 3 BCs because they were being repaired by ~30 scvs. Now I am much more careful.
|
On October 25 2010 13:03 cHaNg-sTa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 12:58 Chairman Ray wrote:
Marauder stim harms marauders? Did they offer an explanation? Maybe they forgot to attack after stimming them. In all seriousness, this is a bad way to balance the game. Sure, the win ratio is probably around 50/50 right now, but to have a game based where the first portion of the game favors one team while the later portion favors the other is very discouraging in terms of balance.
There way is awesome off balancing the game, They get all the facts first.
Look at loner vs genius on scrap station, after storm comes out the game goes vastly in P favour.
|
On October 25 2010 15:58 GoldenH wrote:
I once lost 12 carriers to 3 BCs because they were being repaired by ~30 scvs. Now I am much more careful.
I once lost 12 carriers to 3 roachs because they were sitting in my stargate.
|
Blizzard balances their game by 1a'ing armies into each other and seeing which one is more powerful? That's.. really scary to think that they are that simple-minded about game balance.
I shudder to think how they would have changed BW if they balanced that by having army balls fight each other too..
|
On October 25 2010 12:31 wishbones wrote:
unhh i thinkt hey got the part wrong where terran has upper hand in first twelve minutes sorry to say, but toss can fe super safely and terran cannot without getting worried. so check again blizzard!
are we playing the same game here? it's ridiculously hard to stop 3 rax when you're FEing, but it's rather easy to stop a 4 gate when you're FEing as terran. Most terrans throw down 2-3 bunkers anyway if they smell something... what can toss do? Make recyclable cannons? no.
|
On October 25 2010 16:13 Angra wrote:
Blizzard balances their game by 1a'ing armies into each other and seeing which one is more powerful? That's.. really scary to think that they are that simple-minded about game balance.
I shudder to think how they would have changed BW if they balanced that by having army balls fight each other too..
-_-'
That's not the whole story. Unfortunately this thread didn't really touch on it, but the thread before it mentioned it: the Blizz multiplayer panel demonstrated the Make Combat tool and mentioned that while it was useful for doing very simple tests, they did not rely on it solely for balance purposes.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163309
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/994847#blog
On October 25 2010 13:18 DarkMoon wrote:
While the OP is a nice write up I don't think it does justice to what the blizzcon panel went over completely.
Agreed, and Angra's post is a good example of what happens when half the information is processed.
|
I have to agree a lot of progamers i've talked to and listened to have said the same thing in terms of balance if terran doesn't end it in the first 12 mins then toss is most likely going to win. Also if toss does a 1 gate FE build and terran doesn't scout it early enough (Very small timing window) then toss dominates early game and mid game then late game is a smooth slide to victory which i believe needs to be balanced.
|
On October 25 2010 16:23 MassAirUnits wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 13:18 DarkMoon wrote:
While the OP is a nice write up I don't think it does justice to what the blizzcon panel went over completely. Agreed, and Angra's post is a good example of what happens when half the information is processed.
pretty much this... paired with the fact that some people refuse to think 
btw: the David Kim Interview is another great source if you want to put the pieces together for the
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417
|
On October 25 2010 16:13 Angra wrote:
Blizzard balances their game by 1a'ing armies into each other and seeing which one is more powerful? That's.. really scary to think that they are that simple-minded about game balance.
I shudder to think how they would have changed BW if they balanced that by having army balls fight each other too..
cmon, david kim is actually a very good player, he won't allow balancing solely based upon such stupidity, that's for sure
concerning the topic: I would be more than glad if blizz nerfed psi-storm and buffed early PvT; it may come off as a QQ, but seriously: how often have you lost early on because of MINOR mistakes and got steamrolled by MM a-move? in comparison to how often you have won later on because T wasn't able to handle your psi-storm? see where I'm getting?
a nerf to MM (they did discuss marauder-stim) would be gigantic, because P-players would probably be able to outplay terrans in midgame with gateway/immortal...maybe establish a quick third etc.; a nerf to psi-storm won't hurt that much, because the better early/mid-game would change everything; who knows, maybe protoss would switch to templars much faster and get carriers with them on a regular basis
|
This thread is horribly skewed and only presents bits and pieces of the actual panel discussion.
Here's what Dustin Browder actually said (about 11 minutes into part 2 of the above linked video):
We do find Terrans to be very strong in the beginning of the game. I often get run over early on with stim timing pushes, and it wrecks my day every time with massive amounts of nerdrage. We do see in many cases the Protoss being a little strong in the endgame: if the Terrans can be held off, it seems like a combination of colossus and perhaps more impotantly psi storm suddenly gives Protoss an advantage.
And this leads us to believe that there might be a more fundamental design problem here. While we could maybe get to a place here pretty soon where technically they're going 50/50, all that really matters is 'can the terrans win in the first 12 minutes or not,' and if they don't win there then the Protoss win. And while, I suppose, we could say 'that's 50/50, good enough,' that's not the game we want to make, and I'm pretty sure that's not the game you guys want to play.
Overall, the balance panel was really reassuring. Blizzard showed that they regularly communicate with top players and watch top games--they're not just sitting there looking at spreadsheets and saying "the game's fine!" Also, they're not instantly buffing/nerfing things when potentially biased pros are saying that something's an issue when there aren't any stats from ladder or spreadsheets to back up those claims.
|
On October 25 2010 16:14 CanucksJC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 12:31 wishbones wrote:
unhh i thinkt hey got the part wrong where terran has upper hand in first twelve minutes sorry to say, but toss can fe super safely and terran cannot without getting worried. so check again blizzard! are we playing the same game here? it's ridiculously hard to stop 3 rax when you're FEing, but it's rather easy to stop a 4 gate when you're FEing as terran. Most terrans throw down 2-3 bunkers anyway if they smell something... what can toss do? Make recyclable cannons? no.
1gate FE is strong against 3rax actually. It's weaker against 2rax, funnily enough (or 3rax with 2 naked raxs producing marines, same thing really). 2rax hits slightly earlier, 3rax hits as the warpgates come online so it fails.
1rax FE fails pretty hard against a good 4gate, actually. Even 2rax FE struggles against a good 4gate.
|
I dont mean to belittle blizzard's analysis, but when you have a game with as many openings and as much variability as sc2, you cannot say something as specific as "terran has the advantage for the first 12 minutes."
Oftentimes, a game of sc2 is a tug-of-war where the player in the lead changes minute by minute. Let's say terran goes banshee, kills 2 probes, and maintains a looming threat with a live banshee. Then by standard means, terran has the advantage. Now terran overcommits and loses his banshee. The advantage instantaneously switches to protoss. You can't say that in the first 12 minutes, any party has the advantage. In poker, you can say the player with the higher probability of winning may have the "advantage" (even then it's not a real advantage) at discrete points in time, but sc2 is in real-time and thus, far too intricate for such a concrete statement.
And let's say that at the 8 minute mark, the P and T armies collide, and both sides come out about even. Surely, this affects the "terran has the advantage in the first 12 minutes" claim as it basically resets the armies of both players. And I'm sure I don't even have to mention how different build orders can affect the state of the early game.
Basically, my point is that it's too early to say which race has the advantage at what point because there are so many openings and strategies that haven't been discovered yet. It's ridiculous to put a timestamp on the turning point of a game, even if it is an average statistic. Every data set has an average, but the average means nothing without some measure of volatility. At this point, I think it's best to let the game sit for a few months and see where the meta-game goes.
"Every time, the new patches are hard to adjust to, so I hope in the future the changes aren't cataclysmic."~Boxer
|
On October 25 2010 19:11 xiaofan wrote:
I dont mean to belittle blizzard's analysis, but when you have a game with as many openings and as much variability as sc2, you cannot say something as specific as "terran has the advantage for the first 12 minutes."
Oftentimes, a game of sc2 is a tug-of-war where the player in the lead changes minute by minute. Let's say terran goes banshee, kills 2 probes, and maintains a looming threat with a live banshee. Then by standard means, terran has the advantage. Now terran overcommits and loses his banshee. The advantage instantaneously switches to protoss. You can't say that in the first 12 minutes, any party has the advantage. In poker, you can say the player with the higher probability of winning may have the "advantage" (even then it's not a real advantage) at discrete points in time, but sc2 is in real-time and thus, far too intricate for such a concrete statement.
And let's say that at the 8 minute mark, the P and T armies collide, and both sides come out about even. Surely, this affects the "terran has the advantage in the first 12 minutes" claim as it basically resets the armies of both players. And I'm sure I don't even have to mention how different build orders can affect the state of the early game.
Basically, my point is that it's too early to say which race has the advantage at what point because there are so many openings and strategies that haven't been discovered yet. It's ridiculous to put a timestamp on the turning point of a game, even if it is an average statistic. Every data set has an average, but the average means nothing without some measure of volatility. At this point, I think it's best to let the game sit for a few months and see where the meta-game goes.
"Every time, the new patches are hard to adjust to, so I hope in the future the changes aren't cataclysmic."~Boxer
I think what they mean at 12 minutes is that Protoss is more likely to have to tools to overpower Terran forces at that moment in time, examples are a good number of colossi or/and templar tech
|
During the panel, some people in chat were saying Blizzard shouldn't make their point that way, because people are incapable of understanding things like this. Looks like those people are right.
Blizzard's point was that they don't use any single metric to balance the game. Ladder stats, tournament games (not tournament results, but how the games play out), forum feedback, progamer feedback, internal testing, unit testers, math.
Another point was that they have to balance at all skill levels, but they err on the side of the progamers. Meaning that any one of us is probably seeing balance from a myopic, self-serving point of view. They specifically mentioned Marauders as things that they just won't outright nerf because they're so crucial in most matchups (but they'll protect specific targets from marauders if they're too weak against them). Even if 50 food of MM versus 50 food of gateway units attack moving at each other results in Toss losing every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
