|
On June 08 2011 09:54 cheesemaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 09:28 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The PvZ imbalance can be fixed through maps, e.g Make the natural choke much smaller so fast expands are more viable. Unfortunately GSL keeps making maps with open naturals -_-.
Thanks for the graph though. Agreed it would be so so so much eaiser to hold off roach ling aggression against 3 gate sentry expand if their was smaller chokes, im sure blizzard will realise this eventually.
Lol what?
It needs to be even more difficult for Zerg to have successful early aggression against Protoss because win percentages slid to 3% in Zerg's favor for one month? Ok then...
|
Though my protoss friends are only gold, they've recently mentioned having troubles against Zerg, so the coincidence is interesting, lol.
|
On June 08 2011 10:35 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 09:54 cheesemaster wrote:On June 08 2011 09:28 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The PvZ imbalance can be fixed through maps, e.g Make the natural choke much smaller so fast expands are more viable. Unfortunately GSL keeps making maps with open naturals -_-.
Thanks for the graph though. Agreed it would be so so so much eaiser to hold off roach ling aggression against 3 gate sentry expand if their was smaller chokes, im sure blizzard will realise this eventually. Question is whether or not that would switch the balance in P's favor too much. Remember, Blizzard has access to data on every match ever played, and while they didn't nerf P very much (Recognizing that the imbalance was very slight, and wasn't even present after 1.3.0), they also consistently widened chokes even on maps with narrow ones. GSL has done the same thing. I have a feeling that this is all for a reason--perhaps the game simply isn't balanced on maps with narrow naturals.
Its obvious Blizzard has an issue with players creating expansions, as shown in many of their maps which made it simply impossible to fast expand or grab a 3rd. I don't know why.
As for the GSL maps, that's not really true. A lot of them originally had narrow naturals, and then for some reason they were modified against the original creators will.
Forge FE or low sentry count expansions, should be completely viable on every map, same as for Zerg getting an early 3rd. This will allow Protoss to go into a macro game with non-gateway builds which allows them to harass much more effectively thus keeping Zergs income down while expanding.
Zerg should be more cost-efficient than Protoss given that they can amass a huge counter army almost instantly. The issue is knowing these compositions, and a lot of lower level players just seem to amass the same composition over and over and letting them get obliterated. Nestea abuses the flexibility of Zerg and will go something like Corruptor + Baneling, to counter 2 base colossus, and as soon as Protoss switches his composition, Nestea just switches "faster".
Its really the same problem BW was having with PvZ, until the Bisu build came along, but really that build is only totally viable when there is a narrow natural choke and you can defend with a minimal amount cannons and zealots. 1 base Sair DT simply did not provide enough money to be a stable build that beats Zerg, and not only did the Bisu build allow for a faster natural, it also allowed for a faster 3rd. As generally the more expansions you have, the easier it is to expand again.
So as long as Zerg can just get a second base and mass drone before Protoss can get their second then PvZ will continue to be a bigger and bigger problem as Zergs get smarter, until the maps change.
|
On June 08 2011 04:55 JustPlay wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:48 rysecake wrote:
Zergs still complaining they suck? Hate to break it to you but zerg is fine. Zerg still has a disproportionately difficult time in the early game, and even top players can be killed by ridiculous all-ins because there's simply no way to tell. When people are complaining about zerg scouting or zerg getting cheesed it has everything to do with the early game. You can't use 4 overlords to scout. You can use 1-2 depending on the map due to their speed and the terran being able to score free kills if you attempt to send your second or third in to a pre-scouting position. On top of that if they have 2 marines at opposite sides of their base you will not see anything important inside if they are any good, but again this depends on the map and spawns. Close air benefits overlord scouting significantly on some maps. On shattered temple you 100% know what they are doing for the rest of the game if the terran spawns at 6 and you spawn at 9. SC2 has a lot of problems for all races, and even if the races were at 50% those problems won't magically go away.
I thought there's no easy to stop roaches,lings, banelings all-in from Zerg, and no way to tell? look at July. Played 4 games in like 25 mins.
|
|
|
On June 08 2011 09:50 Raid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 09:18 Drowsy wrote:
Terran wins at high rates and people complain a bit. Protoss wins at marginally higher rates than expected and there is uproar and amulet gets nerfed. What will be the community's reaction when zerg pulls ahead of terran?
To be honest though I think I can live with this level of balance. This is more even than it had been in several different time periods of brood war's history and we're barely past release. I think blizz has done a pretty damn fine job (except PvP 4-gate) It was a much needed nerf. If you re-watched the games back in the day before amulet nerf you will rofl at ridiculously long the games were because terran had no way to kill protoss efficiently and protoss with mass ht can't really kill buildings because what are storms gonna do to buildings? Now with archon buff it would have definitely been imba if toss just morphed archons and roflstomped after blanketing warp in storms. All I can say is at least you can still use HT, Reaper was basically removed from the game..
After reconsidering, I think you're right. A lot of the reason the matchup stats weren't skewed even with amulet in the game was because few of the tosses actually used the "squirtle" or "refugee toss" style. I think if it would have been a bigger part of the metagame pvt would have been heavily p favored.
And yeah, they did over-react on reapers a little bit lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Zerg is completely underpowered. You cannot make hallucinated voidrays OR kill your own command center.
On a more serious note, win rates only tell part of the story and all because a game has "perfect" balance does not mean that there are not issues with it's overall gameplay. Hypothetically if a race had to win in the first 5 minutes of the game or they would lose no matter what, could potentially be a balanced game with a 50% win rate. Obviously there is nothing that wrong with the game in sc2, but people shouldn't be taking win rates as an absolute.
|
Kind of interesting that there was no major zerg buffs in patch 1.2.0 but they started doing better after that patch.
|
statistically it looks balanced but it doesnt really account for how those wins and loses occur. Factor like cheese, early game, late game balance can ultimately change how those win/loses suppose to be.
Is this based off ladder or tournament performances? If its ladder, the factor of maps and close position can show imbalance.
But where do you get this data? I am very curious.
|
On June 08 2011 14:17 DreamRaider wrote:
statistically it looks balanced but it doesnt really account for how those wins and loses occur. Factor like cheese, early game, late game balance can ultimately change how those win/loses suppose to be.
Is this based off ladder or tournament performances? If its ladder, the factor of maps and close position can show imbalance.
But where do you get this data? I am very curious.
He says in the OP where he gets the data. And all of those things are debatable. People don't even know what cheese is.
|
A near 50% win rate for everyone on the ladder simply means that matchmaking is working properly; it doesn't mean the game is balanced.
A near 50% win rate in tournaments could simply mean that people are relying more on high-risk high-reward strategies; in other words, that there's more luck involved than there should be.
A slightly better measure would likely be the number of top players (for example, the top grand master players) there are for each race.
Even then, if for instance toss has to 4 gate nearly every game to maintain a 50% win rate (not that that's the case), I'd be hard pressed to say the game is balanced.
|
On June 08 2011 05:54 Mercury- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 05:52 ShooTouts wrote:
Zerg CLEARLY have done very well against Terrans lately.
But they clearly need more early game scouting options against T . But don't blame the Terran race ... blame Zerg for not having enough scouting options. Blizzard please make this happen. Having perfect scouting would mean Zerg could just drone whore to hell against T/P without any risk. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm a Terran.. thats why I said don't nerf Terran buff Zerg ... will I be upset if Zerg doesnt get a buff ? no
I just don't want Terran nerfed in some way
|
Greece481 Posts
On June 08 2011 16:08 dump wrote:
A near 50% win rate for everyone on the ladder simply means that matchmaking is working properly; it doesn't mean the game is balanced.
A near 50% win rate in tournaments could simply mean that people are relying more on high-risk high-reward strategies; in other words, that there's more luck involved than there should be.
A slightly better measure would likely be the number of top players (for example, the top grand master players) there are for each race.
Even then, if for instance toss has to 4 gate nearly every game to maintain a 50% win rate (not that that's the case), I'd be hard pressed to say the game is balanced.
All evidence point towards the game having a pretty good balance (these stats, GSL, etc.). There is no perfect balance in such a game anyway and it will get better over time. Imo, they have done a fantastic job and as the game evolves we are seeing more macro games and less one base play.
|
Protoss has been slowely but surely nerfed every patch, and zergs are now starting to learn how they can abuse protoss weaknesses.
Protosses have such disproportional difficulties dealing with roaches and mutas. Weve seen countless expamles from GSL where the protoss even with robo and numerous cannons cannot hold a 2 base roach attack, and the minute zerg get 15+ mutas a protoss cant even defend 3 bases even with blink stalkers.
The amulet nerf was an overkill imo, but atm i would say a slight buff of stalkers might be the best solution, perhaps give them equal damage bonus to light as they have to armoured, they are too bad vs mutas as they are.
|
On June 08 2011 16:57 callemacody wrote:
The amulet nerf was an overkill imo, but atm i would say a slight buff of stalkers might be the best solution, perhaps give them equal damage bonus to light as they have to armoured, they are too bad vs mutas as they are.
Stalkers are already the most used unit the protoss have and games are better when you have more choices and not less so I'd really like to see a buff on the unit that is produced the least in the game, the carrier. If amulet was reverted I think it would make the game much more interesting to watch that game with San where he was perma warping in ht and storming bio was crazy.
|
That just shows that patch do not influence balance lol.
Look at graph where patch 1.2.0 was launched. Zergs' ZvP win rate skyrocketed but but patch didn't have a single change for zerg, and it gave good phoenix, void ray and halliucination buffs for toss.
|
On June 08 2011 17:50 Alpina wrote:That just shows that patch do not influence balance lol. Look at graph where patch 1.2.0 was launched. Zergs' ZvP win rate skyrocketed but but patch didn't have a single change for zerg, and it gave good phoenix, void ray and halliucination buffs for toss.
Players can no longer block off ramps with two 2x2 buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
