|
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content.
You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical.
Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. |
On February 07 2011 17:12 WindOw wrote:
Interesting, but honestly I would leave conclusions about imbalances to blizzard, I'm not saying imbalances should not be discussed, however as we can see here stuff like this is only spreading flames, plus, the discussion/show between idra and artosis seem slightly biased.
Well they're not reporting it as 100% undeniably true though, just discussing and making their own conclusions, based on evidence they've seen from games. Obviously balance is kind of hard to talk about because there are so many ways the game can be played, but from what they've seen (which is bias in itself) and what they've dealt with, they made their points well enough imo. .
Personal bias may or may not come into it, hopefully they'll not let it affect what they say but who knows.
|
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. And same goes for the terran ground troops, especially after using stim terran marines and marauders will go down faster than the zerg roaches and hydralisk combo to the colossus. Terrans suffer the same problem, and unlike zerg they cannot remake the army as fast even when minerals are available.
I feel the only reason terrans are so strong (in the GSL) is the marines, and players using them to do early pressure. But if the game goes into late game at the pro level, terrans tend to lose unless the opponent makes huge mistakes. Siege tanks are so nerfed (cost, population and damage), and the overall terran late game units are just not as good.
Code S was won by MVP this season who is playing Terran, but we have to keep in mind that he is the best BW player that has transitioned into SC2 so far. Although a different game, but it seems to be relevant.
|
On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate.
People sometimes forget that range matters...
Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement.
|
On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement.
Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to
a) your micro
b) the enemies micro
c) the map
d) your unit composition
e) the enemies unit composition
if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered.
Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities.
The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit.
|
On February 07 2011 18:41 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement. Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered. Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities. The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit.
Corruptors have lower dps than vikings (even with corruption) and less range. And to use their ability they need mana, most of the time a good zerg player will pop out corruptors at the right time for the fight, and so they will not have any mana.
Having more hit points and more armor is irrelevant when your main duty is to kill colossi the fastest way possible.
Please stop with the biased comment on "no don't say my vikings is better than your corruptor" (and by the way, nobody said that, vikings are just better than corruptors to deal with colossi, not overall as a unit). Having more range also mean they are easier to micro, they can use cliff and map hole (like rivers or space) better than corruptors, to shot and not be targeted by stalker, and about unit composition well that's pointless because both MMM and roach hydra crush gateway units without colossi backing up.
|
On February 07 2011 18:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 18:41 Rabiator wrote:On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement. Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered. Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities. The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit. Corruptors have lower dps than vikings (even with corruption) and less range. And to use their ability they need mana, most of the time a good zerg player will pop out corruptors at the right time for the fight, and so they will not have any mana.Having more hit points and more armor is irrelevant when your main duty is to kill colossi the fastest way possible. Please stop with the biased comment on "no don't say my vikings is better than your corruptor". Having more range also mean they are easier to micro, they can use cliff and map hole (like rivers or space) better than corruptors, to shot and not be targeted by stalker, and about unit composition well that's pointless because both MMM and roach hydra crush gateway units without colossi backing up.
Corruption does not need "mana", it has a 30 second cooldown. When corruptors do pop, the corruption cooldown begins, but it does not require mana to use.
|
On February 07 2011 18:52 Bayyne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 18:46 WhiteDog wrote:On February 07 2011 18:41 Rabiator wrote:On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement. Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered. Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities. The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit. Corruptors have lower dps than vikings (even with corruption) and less range. And to use their ability they need mana, most of the time a good zerg player will pop out corruptors at the right time for the fight, and so they will not have any mana.Having more hit points and more armor is irrelevant when your main duty is to kill colossi the fastest way possible. Please stop with the biased comment on "no don't say my vikings is better than your corruptor". Having more range also mean they are easier to micro, they can use cliff and map hole (like rivers or space) better than corruptors, to shot and not be targeted by stalker, and about unit composition well that's pointless because both MMM and roach hydra crush gateway units without colossi backing up. Corruption does not need "mana", it has a 30 second cooldown. When corruptors do pop, the corruption cooldown begins, but it does not require mana to use.
Trust me, I never knew and I'm a master league zerg. Thanks bro.
|
On February 07 2011 18:41 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement. Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered. Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities. The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit.
I agree that you shouldn't compare A to B in general, but when it comes to killing colossi, a well defined comparison, we can say that vikings can do it better since longer range is more important. Long range allows better micro and control. Also, just shoving the old cliches in people's faces about how it all comes down to "a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition" doesn't really say much, since whether a unit is inherently better or worse against colossi will obviously influence how easy it is to micro against colossi and for your enemy to safely use their colossi. I've seen your previous thread in which you stated that you don't even have the game... why do you feel you need to be so vocal?
|
The roach is a very powerful zerg unit indeed, cost effectively with no micro 1v1 it beats stalkers, but zealots beat roaches 1v1 with no macro, then how are these units swapped around and stalkers counsidered roach counters, and roaches considered stalker counters? Because mobility is a big deal, ofcourse when roaches get their speed upgrade they get a good buff to fight the microing protoss stalkers.
My balance issue in early game in ZvP is how zerglings and roaches have horrible synergy, zerglings are fast melee damage dealers, roaches are slow ranged damage dealers/tanks, these two roles have no reasonable way to work together, the zerglings which are damage dealers will always be attacked first, and the roaches are not able to keep up with the flanking zerglings speeding around the map (Not to mention how bothersome they are to control with the speed difference.
The protoss units, zealots and stalkers, work amazingly well together, zealots are melee damage dealers/tanks and stalkers are mobile ranged damage dealers, the zealots also have a favoureable armor type in most early game (Against stalkers, marauders) so they tank the damage well.
This dosen't mean it's imbalanced, it just means that in an early game fight, zergs will need to either fight with spine crawlers (Full defensive), or mass only one unit, either zerglings or roaches.
I suppose it isn't a problem for the people who like play mind games with the protoss army to create the right mixture to fight it before he warps the next wave of 4-gate in, or simply find it easier to hold down R, but it seems rather boring to me.
|
Russian Federation117 Posts
Like the idea of the show, however I think there should be more opinions and actual "discussion" coming into play.
We can't just put 2 people and make the show about imbalance, we need each top player from each race at least to make the show dynamic and meaningful.
Imagine if TOP 3 players like Idra, Huk and Jinro actually agree on some hypothetic topic, that would actually mean something. Instead we have 2 de facto Zerg players complain about a single protoss unit, not taking into account all the necessary factors but only viewing it from Zerg's perspective,
So, IMO the show idea is cool, but they need to develop the show into more discussion-oriented with more race representation and preferably top players from each race.
|
I think IdrA and Artosis are on to something. GSTL: Squirtle says (by means of playing like that, not actually saying it) "The only units Protoss needs are Colossus + phoenix, ... no micro required". ;D Both units a little imbalanced, together they pwn everything.
|
This episode was awesome. Thanks Idra and Artosis for this. Personally I somewhat agree with Artosis on this. I would like to see evolution of play style before any patches occur. At this stage in the game any change could drastically change balance from one side of the spectrum to the other. If the colossus do get a nerf, I would like to see other units become more powerful, or have other tech options more accessible. Hopefully Blizzard does the right thing, whatever that may be.
Edit: Also note that without colossus, the Protoss army gets steamrolled. This of course ignoring any cheese or gimmicky strategy's and assuming a normal macro on macro style. Starcraft 2 High Templar can't fill in the role that the colossus has embedded itself in. Giving any buff to the High Templar would just break late game PvT, so finding a solution to a problem may lie within the players themselves or the design of the maps. As with many strategy's, even from the Starcraft 1 days, this will proably fix itself over time.
Also a random thought, what do you guys think about buffing the archon. Maybe a stronger tanking unit is what the Protoss needs to deal with roach hydra armies without having to resort to colossus. Just throwing out ideas.
|
When I saw the title I was a bit curious because I know artosis isn't one to cry about OP shit. But this actually seems like it will be a really great show I can't wait for the next one.
|
On February 07 2011 20:19 Zoia wrote:
When I saw the title I was a bit curious because I know artosis isn't one to cry about OP shit. But this actually seems like it will be a really great show I can't wait for the next one.
Artosis was known in BW for moaning and groaning about DT drops and other protoss 'abuse' all the time. Idra too, to a lesser extent.
rekrul's foreigners suck thread(s) are pertinent here.
|
|
|
Saw the show almost immediately since you posted up the notice on Twitter Artosis. Great show and I really enjoyed it. I really look forward to discussions of IMBA on other episodes soon!!
|
On February 07 2011 19:02 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 18:41 Rabiator wrote:On February 07 2011 18:17 Morfildur wrote:On February 07 2011 17:46 thesums wrote:
I do not understand why vikings are better than corrupters, the corrupters also have the corrupt ability, so they will be able to take down the colossus at a faster rate. People sometimes forget that range matters... Vikings have a high range, so they are able to attack the colossi without the stalkers shooting the vikings down. They can also snipe colossi with hit-and-run attacks before the big engagement. Yeah, but the Corruptors have higher armor and more hit points than the Colossi, so they can do it as well ... so comparing the two and saying "A is better than B" is quite useless. It all comes down to a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition if you can use a unit "effectively". So there are TONS of factors involved other than "basic unit stats" to make a unit great, mediocre or uselessly underpowered. Please please please stop the useless "kids playground discussions" without taking all sides and aspects into account. The Colossus isnt imbalanced, but it is more powerful on some maps than on others ... so you should rather figure out which MAPS are the bad ones and why instead of arguing about the stats or unit abilities. The "imbalance" of the maps even got mentioned in the video ... albeit only in just a few sentences. It is the core of more imbalance than most want to admit. I agree that you shouldn't compare A to B in general, but when it comes to killing colossi, a well defined comparison, we can say that vikings can do it better since longer range is more important. Long range allows better micro and control. Also, just shoving the old cliches in people's faces about how it all comes down to "a) your micro b) the enemies micro c) the map d) your unit composition e) the enemies unit composition" doesn't really say much, since whether a unit is inherently better or worse against colossi will obviously influence how easy it is to micro against colossi and for your enemy to safely use their colossi. I've seen your previous thread in which you stated that you don't even have the game... why do you feel you need to be so vocal?
So what? The corruptors are able to pursue the Colossi longer due to their better defensive capability. Thus they are more like "shoot, forget and rebuild" missiles and probably more suited for people with lower microing skills. Maybe the Zerg remacroing capability isnt taken into account? Just send in a wave of Corruptors (enough to kill a bunch) and then get a new wave of Corruptors. You dont even need your other ground troops for that. Terrans cant really do that, not unless they build five Starports with Reactors and that is not really realistic, is it?
We shouldnt compare A and B, but for Colossi we must make an exception? Because you say so?
Sure, long range allows you to do fancy back and forth micro, but the pure "tanking power" of Corruptors can be advantageous at some points too ... namely when your opponent doesnt have too many Stalkers. If a Protoss has a ton of Stalkers even a bunch of Vikings cant help you and the Vikings are useless (more or less) once the Colossi are dead, wheras the Corruptors might get a second chance as Broodlord. So you can NOT really compare these two units on their "Colossus killing power" alone.
You write in your comment above that the "cliches" do not say much, but tell a few Zerg players to play on Steppes of War or Kulas Ravine and you suddenly have loads of complaints. And they would be right to complain, because those two maps show obvious problems which hinder the Zerg but not the other two races. On other maps the situation is very different and even Colossi do not pose that much of a problem to Zerg (as stated by Artosis in his "show"). So the cliches matter ... A LOT.
Zealots absolutely kill Zerglings, right? You can not "counter" Zealots with Zerglings, right? WRONG. A few days back I saw a pretty short game where TLO absolutely massacred an offensive Protoss player with Zerglings, even though the Protoss only got Zealots. How did he manage that? He simply had wayyy more Zerglings and excellent micro. Thus the stats of the units dont matter as much as the whin... err bean counters in this thread (or anywhere else) would make them. If a unit is "very badly imbalanced" it is "broken" and that is usually totally obvious like the beta Roach. Some other imbalances have to do with timing like the Reaper, but the unit itself is quite useless right now, but there are more than one way to fix those problems ... bigger maps being the second path which Blizzard chose NOT to go.
I am trying to make people "see the light of reason" and start blaming the maps for problems in the game balance instead of the unit stats and abilities. The "map size dilemma" should be blatantly obvious.
P.S.:
a) I still dont own the game.
b) Why shouldnt I talk about it when the "mistakes in the discussion" (focusing on the wrong target) are so blatantly obvious? It is just some common sense that is needed to understand.
|
personally I feel that corruptors costing 150 minerals as zerg usually has mineral surplus but 75 gas would help control the colossai imbalance issues. I would also propose that having muta do +dmg vs them as well (20% bonus that VR/corruptors get as well).
I also think that thermal lance should take longer to research or having its overall range reduced by 1 (while upgraded).
|
How to fix zerg.
Overlord Speed after Spawning pool
^----Fixed. Blizzard hire me.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
As a protoss player I just wish that gateway units were better so that I wouldn't have to rely that much on getting tech so early. But oh wait, that will never happen because of the Warpgate technology.
I still hope for bigger maps being able to solve most balance issues...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
