|
On September 18 2011 14:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 03:20 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On September 13 2011 14:44 T0fuuu wrote:
Too much protoss talk atm lets go back to terran <:
Who else thinks marines are a bit too good in every matchup? They scale quite well and ball very tightly to do insane dps, in zvt and tvp we are seeing more marine heavy armys because marines with medivacs rape gateway armys pretty cost effeciently and let terrans get ghosts faster. In zvt its a bit more balanced because of banelings and creep but when the upgrades start getting piled on marines they become a walking wrecking ball, they can fight lings, roaches mutas and hydras very easily and can kill expos pretty quickly. Drops also get pretty ridiculous to deal with as zerg or protoss because of how effective marines are against small forces. Getting into lategame as well if terran and zerg exchange armys, reactors can remake marines at a frightening pace. Pretty much any expo without something silly like 3 cannons or spines can get taken out by a force of 8 marines.
Part of the reason they are so good now is because they have extra health now and a free range upgrade but the other reason is that now that dropships dont need room for medics more marines can be held and their damage output increases tremendously. Medivacs heal at a fast rate and make dealing with marines between minerals pretty annoying for both races.
I would suggest lowering the marine ROF just slightly. Looking at the situation in Korea, there is clearly an issue with balance. 20 terrans 5 toss and 7 Zerg is not a healthy balance no matter how you look at it. That is an argument for bad tournament format not game balance. With the up & down system even if you consider 100% game balance it would be highly unlikely that all the players going down from code S are T and all the players coming in are P/Z (and this would have to happen about 3 times).
I'm not 100% certain of what you meant here but didn't you prove my point? If we assume 100% game balance then isn't the reverse of what you said true as well? In that it is highly unlikely that all the players coming up from code A are T and all the players going down from code S are P/Z? Well this is what has happened. And if it is highly unlikely given 100% game balance, the that suggests the more likely alternative that the game isn't 100% balanced.
|
On September 18 2011 14:29 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 13:12 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Hero's PvZ (specifically vs. IdrA) is terrifying. I think he could change that matchup.
Too bad his PvT is awful. Alicia has the "best PvT" in the world and he still lost miserably in a terran filled tournament.
Eh... Alicia's been slumping lately. He's still good, but I wouldn't say he's best in the world when it comes to anything right now.
In all honesty, I feel like the problem with EMP could be solved simply by giving it a travel time that actually matters. Right now it's a projectile, but it's so fast that it's effectively impossible to dodge, regardless of micro. If its travel time was lengthened, it'd be more in line with storm and it'd give us a reason to bring a prism with us versus just building a pylon.
In regards to 1/1/1, what about putting the raven on a separate tech building(starport or armory prerequisite, maybe?), but giving it HSM as a baseline ability. It makes it easier to differentiate between variations of the 1/1/1 and, say, banshee harass, gives us a little more time to prepare, and makes HSM more desirable at the same time.
|
Ghosts need to go back to 100/150 or whatever they were before. It's so easy for a Terran late-game to just pump out 10 Ghosts and have that many EMPs at their disposal is devastating for Protoss and even Zerg with their Snipe.
|
On September 18 2011 14:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 03:20 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On September 13 2011 14:44 T0fuuu wrote:
Too much protoss talk atm lets go back to terran <:
Who else thinks marines are a bit too good in every matchup? They scale quite well and ball very tightly to do insane dps, in zvt and tvp we are seeing more marine heavy armys because marines with medivacs rape gateway armys pretty cost effeciently and let terrans get ghosts faster. In zvt its a bit more balanced because of banelings and creep but when the upgrades start getting piled on marines they become a walking wrecking ball, they can fight lings, roaches mutas and hydras very easily and can kill expos pretty quickly. Drops also get pretty ridiculous to deal with as zerg or protoss because of how effective marines are against small forces. Getting into lategame as well if terran and zerg exchange armys, reactors can remake marines at a frightening pace. Pretty much any expo without something silly like 3 cannons or spines can get taken out by a force of 8 marines.
Part of the reason they are so good now is because they have extra health now and a free range upgrade but the other reason is that now that dropships dont need room for medics more marines can be held and their damage output increases tremendously. Medivacs heal at a fast rate and make dealing with marines between minerals pretty annoying for both races.
I would suggest lowering the marine ROF just slightly. Looking at the situation in Korea, there is clearly an issue with balance. 20 terrans 5 toss and 7 Zerg is not a healthy balance no matter how you look at it. All we can say is that all 3 races have won a good nr of tournaments, meaning that there is no such thing as a "broken" race. Only Blizzard knows the win % across the board and have an idea about balance.
There were graphs recently released on TL giving each match-ups specific win rate in pro matches for each month. I don't remember exactly what the figures were, nor could I find the link (if someone knows can you post it) but Terran has been over 50% every single month save a few. Even reaching win rates of 70% at times if I'm not mistaken.
|
On September 18 2011 15:16 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 14 2011 03:20 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On September 13 2011 14:44 T0fuuu wrote:
Too much protoss talk atm lets go back to terran <:
Who else thinks marines are a bit too good in every matchup? They scale quite well and ball very tightly to do insane dps, in zvt and tvp we are seeing more marine heavy armys because marines with medivacs rape gateway armys pretty cost effeciently and let terrans get ghosts faster. In zvt its a bit more balanced because of banelings and creep but when the upgrades start getting piled on marines they become a walking wrecking ball, they can fight lings, roaches mutas and hydras very easily and can kill expos pretty quickly. Drops also get pretty ridiculous to deal with as zerg or protoss because of how effective marines are against small forces. Getting into lategame as well if terran and zerg exchange armys, reactors can remake marines at a frightening pace. Pretty much any expo without something silly like 3 cannons or spines can get taken out by a force of 8 marines.
Part of the reason they are so good now is because they have extra health now and a free range upgrade but the other reason is that now that dropships dont need room for medics more marines can be held and their damage output increases tremendously. Medivacs heal at a fast rate and make dealing with marines between minerals pretty annoying for both races.
I would suggest lowering the marine ROF just slightly. Looking at the situation in Korea, there is clearly an issue with balance. 20 terrans 5 toss and 7 Zerg is not a healthy balance no matter how you look at it. That is an argument for bad tournament format not game balance. With the up & down system even if you consider 100% game balance it would be highly unlikely that all the players going down from code S are T and all the players coming in are P/Z (and this would have to happen about 3 times). I'm not 100% certain of what you meant here but didn't you prove my point? If we assume 100% game balance then isn't the reverse of what you said true as well? In that it is highly unlikely that all the players coming up from code A are T and all the players going down from code S are P/Z? Well this is what has happened. And if it is highly unlikely given 100% game balance, the that suggests the more likely alternative that the game isn't 100% balanced.
Am i saying that if NOW there would be 100%game balance, it would take a long, long time before all races are represented in (almost)equal numbers (assuming there are the same number of pro players T/P/Z in the Korean scene). One of my points is that the current imbalance of races in code S is down to "terran op" from a long time ago that promoted a lot of terrans in said code S. Now all the players from code S are super protected with the system.
I'm not doing a good job explaining this i'm sure :p This discussion took place in a SOTG i think (day[9] or artosis explained it and the terrible code S system)
Mind you, by terrible system i mean terrible for race distribution AT THIS TIME. But it's a very good system for the players already in code S, they are "protected" to have a relatively constant income (as i understand).
|
On September 18 2011 15:27 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 14 2011 03:20 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On September 13 2011 14:44 T0fuuu wrote:
Too much protoss talk atm lets go back to terran <:
Who else thinks marines are a bit too good in every matchup? They scale quite well and ball very tightly to do insane dps, in zvt and tvp we are seeing more marine heavy armys because marines with medivacs rape gateway armys pretty cost effeciently and let terrans get ghosts faster. In zvt its a bit more balanced because of banelings and creep but when the upgrades start getting piled on marines they become a walking wrecking ball, they can fight lings, roaches mutas and hydras very easily and can kill expos pretty quickly. Drops also get pretty ridiculous to deal with as zerg or protoss because of how effective marines are against small forces. Getting into lategame as well if terran and zerg exchange armys, reactors can remake marines at a frightening pace. Pretty much any expo without something silly like 3 cannons or spines can get taken out by a force of 8 marines.
Part of the reason they are so good now is because they have extra health now and a free range upgrade but the other reason is that now that dropships dont need room for medics more marines can be held and their damage output increases tremendously. Medivacs heal at a fast rate and make dealing with marines between minerals pretty annoying for both races.
I would suggest lowering the marine ROF just slightly. Looking at the situation in Korea, there is clearly an issue with balance. 20 terrans 5 toss and 7 Zerg is not a healthy balance no matter how you look at it. All we can say is that all 3 races have won a good nr of tournaments, meaning that there is no such thing as a "broken" race. Only Blizzard knows the win % across the board and have an idea about balance. There were graphs recently released on TL giving each match-ups specific win rate in pro matches for each month. I don't remember exactly what the figures were, nor could I find the link (if someone knows can you post it) but Terran has been over 50% every single month save a few. Even reaching win rates of 70% at times if I'm not mistaken. Winrates from August(international only, since there wasn't an enormous pool of data from Korea):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=262678
Then there's the Korean graph from July:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Can someone explain to me why balance only matters at the highest level? It doesn't seem very intuitive to me. The highest level of play is still not perfect, which means that the players could always "macro better," for instance. If something is imbalanced, then won't that also be felt through the lower levels, albeit to lesser degrees as skill decreases?
Now obviously the game should be balanced at the highest level of play, but I'm more interesting in why people insist that balance only matters at a pro-level (or maybe not even?)
|
On September 18 2011 17:22 KimJongChill wrote:
Can someone explain to me why balance only matters at the highest level? It doesn't seem very intuitive to me. The highest level of play is still not perfect, which means that the players could always "macro better," for instance. If something is imbalanced, then won't that also be felt through the lower levels, albeit to lesser degrees as skill decreases?
Well. First: Define "perfect" - do you mean having close to 0 resources at all times, having exactly the right number of production buildings/upgrades/tech and managing to multitask like Flash? Because even in BW, perfection hasn't been reached. For example, in the OSL finals Fantasy vs Jangbi, not to spoil the results but one player was floating over 1000 minerals in one game for quite a while when on very few bases.
Because we don't know how good pros can get, for now we balance around the highest current level. That doesn't mean that we don't want people to improve, but that we don't know what will change in the balance when people do improve.
On September 18 2011 17:22 KimJongChill wrote:Now obviously the game should be balanced at the highest level of play, but I'm more interesting in why people insist that balance only matters at a pro-level (or maybe not even?)
Because if you aren't at pro-level, the Blizzard matchmaking system automatically moves your W/L ratio to about 1/1. That means that unless you are desperate to move up the rankings and become GM, you are still going to have good games against people regardless of balance. Sure, fundamental game design is important at all levels of play - for example, if Protoss is forced to 4gate vs other Protoss or die, then PvP is balanced (obviously... it's hard to unbalance a mirror match-up), but it will still be dull as hell to play.
Also, if you try to balance the game at all levels, it becomes a lot harder. Obviously. This means that if Blizzard wants to focus on a level to balance at, they should where it matters most: for the pros.
|
Revert all the nerfs that Protoss have gotten since beta and see what happens. Increased Void Ray range/damage will be sweet, Amulet gives templar a nice way to get some damage on the crazy bio balls, bring back 8 damage sentries so they're not paperweights, decrease immortal build time, bring back void ray speed upgrade, reduce warp gate research, etc etc
then if they're too powerful, scale it back. I have a feeling they won't be even with all that
|
Some people have suggested some pretty wild and poorly thought out ideas. My 2 cents is simple = Buff stalkers vs terran end of story.
|
Haha whoever says that terran isn't op seriously go watch Marineking vs Losira Game 1... it was roughly 50 drones to 17 scvs at the 13 min mark...... sure marineking played a pretty sweet game, but seriously you've got to be freaking kidding me.... he made like a total of 3 tanks and only marines and marauders and the medivacs didnt come out till like the very very end of the game
EDIT* Go watch game two now..... terran is pretty hilarious
|
EMP on Raven wouldn't work right now. It's an interesting idea but both the Ghost and Raven would have to be tweaked a lot. Templar have Feedback now, Ravens are quite big, quite slow and you need a techlab on each Starport to make them.
|
On September 18 2011 17:31 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 17:22 KimJongChill wrote:
Can someone explain to me why balance only matters at the highest level? It doesn't seem very intuitive to me. The highest level of play is still not perfect, which means that the players could always "macro better," for instance. If something is imbalanced, then won't that also be felt through the lower levels, albeit to lesser degrees as skill decreases? Well. First: Define "perfect" - do you mean having close to 0 resources at all times, having exactly the right number of production buildings/upgrades/tech and managing to multitask like Flash? Because even in BW, perfection hasn't been reached. For example, in the OSL finals Fantasy vs Jangbi, not to spoil the results but one player was floating over 1000 minerals in one game for quite a while when on very few bases. Because we don't know how good pros can get, for now we balance around the highest current level. That doesn't mean that we don't want people to improve, but that we don't know what will change in the balance when people do improve. Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 17:22 KimJongChill wrote:Now obviously the game should be balanced at the highest level of play, but I'm more interesting in why people insist that balance only matters at a pro-level (or maybe not even?) Because if you aren't at pro-level, the Blizzard matchmaking system automatically moves your W/L ratio to about 1/1. That means that unless you are desperate to move up the rankings and become GM, you are still going to have good games against people regardless of balance. Sure, fundamental game design is important at all levels of play - for example, if Protoss is forced to 4gate vs other Protoss or die, then PvP is balanced (obviously... it's hard to unbalance a mirror match-up), but it will still be dull as hell to play. Also, if you try to balance the game at all levels, it becomes a lot harder. Obviously. This means that if Blizzard wants to focus on a level to balance at, they should where it matters most: for the pros.
Yeah, this is generally how I've viewed it too, thanks for clearing some stuff up.
|
On September 18 2011 15:22 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:29 Kluey wrote:On September 18 2011 13:12 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Hero's PvZ (specifically vs. IdrA) is terrifying. I think he could change that matchup.
Too bad his PvT is awful. Alicia has the "best PvT" in the world and he still lost miserably in a terran filled tournament. Eh... Alicia's been slumping lately. He's still good, but I wouldn't say he's best in the world when it comes to anything right now. In all honesty, I feel like the problem with EMP could be solved simply by giving it a travel time that actually matters. Right now it's a projectile, but it's so fast that it's effectively impossible to dodge, regardless of micro. If its travel time was lengthened, it'd be more in line with storm and it'd give us a reason to bring a prism with us versus just building a pylon. In regards to 1/1/1, what about putting the raven on a separate tech building(starport or armory prerequisite, maybe?), but giving it HSM as a baseline ability. It makes it easier to differentiate between variations of the 1/1/1 and, say, banshee harass, gives us a little more time to prepare, and makes HSM more desirable at the same time.
Lol people say every single protoss who used to do well is 'slumping' all the sudden...who has done well without some kind of all-in working due to an opponent's mistake?
|
On September 18 2011 17:58 PimpWilly wrote:
Revert all the nerfs that Protoss have gotten since beta and see what happens. Increased Void Ray range/damage will be sweet, Amulet gives templar a nice way to get some damage on the crazy bio balls, bring back 8 damage sentries so they're not paperweights, decrease immortal build time, bring back void ray speed upgrade, reduce warp gate research, etc etc
then if they're too powerful, scale it back. I have a feeling they won't be even with all that
I do think the game right now is favoring the other races, but to revert all the changes is like making it a new game at this point in time. That is why blizzard tweaks instead of doing something like this. Think of changes and reasoning behind why it should be that way. If you actually think it wouldn't be ridiculous with all those things back in the game I just don't know what to say.
On September 18 2011 18:22 Secret05 wrote:
Haha whoever says that terran isn't op seriously go watch Marineking vs Losira Game 1... it was roughly 50 drones to 17 scvs at the 13 min mark...... sure marineking played a pretty sweet game, but seriously you've got to be freaking kidding me.... he made like a total of 3 tanks and only marines and marauders and the medivacs didnt come out till like the very very end of the game
EDIT* Go watch game two now..... terran is pretty hilarious
I think you are trying to complain about mules? Both of them played pretty sloppily either way. Drawing the conclusion that terran is obviously OP from that one game makes my head hurt a little.
On September 18 2011 18:17 PrObeLife wrote:
Some people have suggested some pretty wild and poorly thought out ideas. My 2 cents is simple = Buff stalkers vs terran end of story.
Why stalkers? How do you buff them only against one race without having side effects on other match-ups? How is your idea less wild and not poorly thought out? You said 4 words without an explanation of why.
On September 18 2011 19:17 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 15:22 Daralii wrote:On September 18 2011 14:29 Kluey wrote:On September 18 2011 13:12 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Hero's PvZ (specifically vs. IdrA) is terrifying. I think he could change that matchup.
Too bad his PvT is awful. Alicia has the "best PvT" in the world and he still lost miserably in a terran filled tournament. Eh... Alicia's been slumping lately. He's still good, but I wouldn't say he's best in the world when it comes to anything right now. In all honesty, I feel like the problem with EMP could be solved simply by giving it a travel time that actually matters. Right now it's a projectile, but it's so fast that it's effectively impossible to dodge, regardless of micro. If its travel time was lengthened, it'd be more in line with storm and it'd give us a reason to bring a prism with us versus just building a pylon. In regards to 1/1/1, what about putting the raven on a separate tech building(starport or armory prerequisite, maybe?), but giving it HSM as a baseline ability. It makes it easier to differentiate between variations of the 1/1/1 and, say, banshee harass, gives us a little more time to prepare, and makes HSM more desirable at the same time. Lol people say every single protoss who used to do well is 'slumping' all the sudden...who has done well without some kind of all-in working due to an opponent's mistake?
I think this has to do with Blizzard having to balance around the warp-in mechanic. Makes Protoss a better all-in race so blizzard nerfs some of the all-in aspects of Protoss and that weakens the race as a whole.
|
Haha whoever says that terran isn't op seriously go watch Marineking vs Losira Game 1... it was roughly 50 drones to 17 scvs at the 13 min mark...... sure marineking played a pretty sweet game, but seriously you've got to be freaking kidding me.... he made like a total of 3 tanks and only marines and marauders and the medivacs didnt come out till like the very very end of the game
EDIT* Go watch game two now..... terran is pretty hilarious
That's a horrible thing to say man.
MKP had 3 OC's. I'm pretty sure he made that third OC as a response to what happened, but he was able to pump SCV's quite fast after that. Meanwhile Losira only had 2 bases (and a macro hatch), he didn't have lair to get bane speed or anything crucial like that, and he lost a lot of drones. His mass ling attack at the start also really hurt him (him losing 30 lings is essentially MKP killing 15 drones).
It may have looked like Losira was ahead, but there was no way for MKP to lose after the horrible follow-up decisions such as not taking a third, the failed continued aggression, and that horrible ling run-in at the start.
I definitely know what you mean when someone says "terran op... fucking 17 scvs and still wins wtf" but this game is not an example of that.
|
I have to say, despite all that PR we got from Kim and Browder that this was going to be a game designed for e-sports from the ground up, I get a consistent feeling that they simply never truly understood what they were doing.
- Overlord detection is removed because it gives Zerg a free pass against cloaked units, yet DT's and burrowed roaches are gimmicky vs terran because scan has an 80% availability and massive radius. It's not like turrets are t2 or something, it's just a free get-out-of-jail card.
- Zerg's horribly missdesigned T1 lacking a true ranged attacker. Hydras were made slow and fragile T2 units because "If there was a unit that was strong against both air and ground, the other units would inevitably be used less. That is why there was a strong tendency for players to mass hydras in StarCraft 1." Well, Marines and Stalkers form the core of their respective armies for that very reason, but why that is allowed is never explained.
- Lurkers "overlap with banelings" in a world where siege tanks and hellions coexist happily.
- Storm DPS was nerfed because it melted stuff too fast in BW, yet EMP is still allowed to do 100 instant AoE.
This is just a list of stuff of the top of my head, most of it is because I play Zerg, but what all this tells me is that the lead developers simply never understood. They just threw random cool-looking shit in. Everything we see now is a result from these bad fundamentals.
|
- Overlord detection is removed because it gives Zerg a free pass against cloaked units, yet DT's and burrowed roaches are gimmicky vs terran because scan has an 80% availability and massive radius. It's not like turrets are t2 or something, it's just a free get-out-of-jail card.
Terran needs MULEs to keep up with larva inject and chrono boost, and vice versa. At the lower levels Terrans save up scans, but at the higher levels terran can't just rely on scans. A terran wasting money on turrets means they can't be aggressive either. I agree that burrowed roaches are just totally useless (both in ZvT and ZvP), but the idea that burrow or DT is useless against terran is ridiculous.
- Zerg's horribly missdesigned T1 lacking a true ranged attacker. Hydras were made slow and fragile T2 units because "If there was a unit that was strong against both air and ground, the other units would inevitably be used less. That is why there was a strong tendency for players to mass hydras in StarCraft 1." Well, Marines and Stalkers form the core of their respective armies for that very reason, but why that is allowed is never explained.
Hydras are useless, I agree with that - they to mutas, they lose to double starport phoenix, they lose to banshees and thors and marines. But Zerg's t1 is perfectly fine, I think the decision to remove AA from zerg units is great. Zerg doesn't need a 'true ranged attacker' at t1. Zerg's t1 is fine.
- Lurkers "overlap with banelings" in a world where siege tanks and hellions coexist happily.
While Zerg does lack a space control method against Protoss, they did overlap for the most part. I'm glad they removed lurkers and replaced them with banelings. I don't want a zerg siege tank, and there are a lot of issues with lurkers in SC2 (it was in alpha, and with terrans scans/detection...). If there were lurkers instead of banes, ZvT would be a turtlefest instead of the ling/bane/muta vs terran epic battles we have.
This is just a list of stuff of the top of my head, most of it is because I play Zerg, but what all this tells me is that the lead developers simply never understood. They just threw random cool-looking shit in. Everything we see now is a result from these bad fundamentals.
They design a game. Just like SC1, they make cool shit, then they revisit it for multiplayer and balance it.
I think they're doing a great job, and this is from a Masters zerg. There are a few developmental issues, but that can not be addressed by a patch, and they have done extremely well as it is. As far as patches go, they've all been great.
|
Ghosts should not be the hard counter to shields and bio.
Feedback should be 10 range.
You should not be able to warp in within enemy pylon radii.
Fungal should not be usable against massive.
Ultralisks should have a shorter attack animation delay.
|
OMFG I just all my marines to banelings!
L2 micro
OMFG i just got my whole army emp'd because i can't spread out my units!
Terran OP!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png)
