EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1104
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 23 2014 02:25 DinoMight wrote: @TheDwf Certainly that guy's example was a bit extreme (very small sample size and ridiculous claims).. but it does seem like Terran is getting the better end of the deal in TvZ right now. The maps are pretty tough and the mines are back to pre-patch AND the Hellbats haven't been reverted. So surely, if the matchup was balanced pre wm nerf (which I think you've said) it's more favorable for Terran now, what with the Hellbat buff and better maps? Thoughts? It was balanced in korea by numbers alone, macro tvz with bio mines was pretty firmly in terrans favor, with months and months of people looking to soulkey for inspiration (only to watch him fumble horribly past the 10 minute mark) until drg and curious proved to be unbelievably skillful. I guess on the same token only a few terrans could really play the bio/mine parade push well, namely being polt/taeja/innovation/flash/reality/probably a few other proleague terran's I've forgotten. Still, it will be hilarious to see the zerg exodus with this map pool, and this reverting of the widowmine buff + hellbats return and thor buff. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 23 2014 02:19 r691175002 wrote: Please, if you are going to make ridiculous claims, at least try to provide some semblance of an argument to back it up. I've said it multiple times actually, but I'll say it again, there was literally two people who surpassed the bio/mine style against top tier terrans in the entire period of time from the rise of bogus till the widowmine nerf. Two series as well, not even consistent results, just two series. They've then taken it back to that stage, added two additional terran buffs, and then the map pool is fantastic for terran. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On September 23 2014 02:31 bo1b wrote: It was balanced in korea by numbers alone, macro tvz with bio mines was pretty firmly in terrans favor, with months and months of people looking to soulkey for inspiration (only to watch him fumble horribly past the 10 minute mark) until drg and curious proved to be unbelievably skillful. I guess on the same token only a few terrans could really play the bio/mine parade push well, namely being polt/taeja/innovation/flash/reality/probably a few other proleague terran's I've forgotten. Still, it will be hilarious to see the zerg exodus with this map pool, and this reverting of the widowmine buff + hellbats return and thor buff. Well, keep in mind the build they (Terrans) were using was horribly greedy... so you can't just look at "macro games" for balance. I mean if Protoss went 3 Nexus every game and wasn't punished "balance" would have a whole new meaning  It does seem that Zerg has to try a little bit harder than Terran to win. At least lately with the new maps and Hellbat buff+Widow Mine reversion+Thor Buff. EDIT - I compiled stats for Code A and Code S this season.. TvZ was 35 - 31 in maps in favor of T and 13-13 in series. Looks pretty close on paper, but looking at the details the better player usually won... it's not enough of a sample size I feel. Cure:Solar and Innovation:DRG were total ROFLSTOMPS though. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
Even just thors or just mines can accomplish the same. For zerg standard play what changed is that to go for the normal greed from old days you take a huge risk of an early death. And if you survive you acomplish an army composition that is not as effective as before. The point being zerg might as well do something else o_O Im clueless about what zerg is supposed to do right now, maybe just focus more on ling/bane runby? I hope soO and Soulkey can show me the way | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 23 2014 01:50 bo1b wrote: Did you see the state of zvt pre mine buff? It was arguably slightly terran favored post roach/bane all in. I don't see how it can be anything but terran favored with hellbats back and the thor buffed to counter the unit used to counter mines. Not sure. I think the game was fine pre-mine nerf. And I think the game was fine post-mine nerf. At some point early this year it was getting a little scary for Terran, but then they bounced back and basically all the Korean tournaments were in balance in ZvT. Now, with the mine rebuff, it looks a little bit like Zergs are on the retreat. But then again, I believe that this is also partly due to Terrans just stepping their game up overall. After months I think we currently see the actual power of hellbat pushes, not just the ragtag ones that previously were played. Add to that how they remembered that any halfdecent Terran has a random shot at beating any Zerg with 2rax. Especially what I want to point out is that the current Terran macrogame is not the same as it was before the mine nerf. As long as Zergs keep them from building 12min 4th bases like mid 2013 - which I believe is a result of Zergs using mutalisks better since the end of 2013 - I don't think Terrans can play actual macro games past 25mins with bio.  | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 23 2014 02:47 DinoMight wrote: Well, keep in mind the build they (Terrans) were using was horribly greedy... so you can't just look at "macro games" for balance. I mean if Protoss went 3 Nexus every game and wasn't punished "balance" would have a whole new meaning It does seem that Zerg has to try a little bit harder than Terran to win. At least lately with the new maps and Hellbat buff+Widow Mine reversion+Thor Buff. EDIT - I compiled stats for Code A and Code S this season.. TvZ was 35 - 31 in maps in favor of T and 13-13 in series. Looks pretty close on paper, but looking at the details the better player usually won... it's not enough of a sample size I feel. Cure:Solar and Innovation:DRG were total ROFLSTOMPS though. It can't have been that greedy, we saw innovation deflecting soulkeys roach bane all in more times then not (and soulkey was arguably the best at it by far). Did bogus have to lose a ton of his games to early aggression in order for it to be not greedy or something? Seems weird that the balance of a matchup should be considered balanced if its predicated on terran taking game breaking damage early game or not. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 23 2014 02:54 Big J wrote: Not sure. I think the game was fine pre-mine nerf. And I think the game was fine post-mine nerf. At some point early this year it was getting a little scary for Terran, but then they bounced back and basically all the Korean tournaments were in balance in ZvT. Now, with the mine rebuff, it looks a little bit like Zergs are on the retreat. But then again, I believe that this is also partly due to Terrans just stepping their game up overall. After months I think we currently see the actual power of hellbat pushes, not just the ragtag ones that previously were played. Add to that how they remembered that any halfdecent Terran has a random shot at beating any Zerg with 2rax. Especially what I want to point out is that the current Terran macrogame is not the same as it was before the mine nerf. As long as Zergs keep them from building 12min 4th bases like mid 2013 - which I believe is a result of Zergs using mutalisks better since the end of 2013 - I don't think Terrans can play actual macro games past 25mins with bio. Muta control has arguably gotten worse from tip top zergs who no longer have to squeeze every drop of goodness from them since the mine nerf. Not including soo of course, that guy plays like drg did in his zvt, such an inspiration. | ||
|
Samx
Singapore149 Posts
So let's get things straight about what is the balance that everyone seems to have an opinion on and more likely than not being influenced by the race they play. Now, let us imagine a hypothetical world where SC2 was only available to the American continents. No one else is able to play the game. Therefore we have Major, winning the past 6 iterations of the cola Americana. A bona fide bonjwa. In this world, we would be discussing now op terran was, because Major just rekt everyone on such a consistent basis. Would anyone be wrong to say based on results, with terran winning the last 6 biggest tournaments and draw conclusions from tournament results? In the hypothetical world, the argument seems pretty sound doesn't it? But in our world, it isn't the case. Outside of the Americas, major despite being a great player hasn't won a major tournament. So in the hypothetical world, the zergs and Protoss in America is losing to major because of balance issue or is it because of skill level? Now, back to our world. Are the marus and boguses losses to protosses due to balance or skill level? That brings me to the first point. There is a theoretical balance of the game. Where the players have immaculate micro and macro where they are able to perform 2000 apm and have practiced on each map 2000 times and able to react perfectly to the information they gather. Is this the balance that we are discussing? Posts that seems to discuss this theoretical balance are for examples pointing out dps/supply/mineral or mules rate of mining or comparison of stats of units or game mechanics like force field. If the theoretical balance is not the thing we want to argue about, then the other balance is the skill level balance. So the pertinent question would then be, at which skill level should the game be balanced? Bronze? Platinum? Gm NA? Gm Korea? Gsl? Proleague? Or zest vs soo vs flash level? Or TheDwf and Avillo level? I find a bit of the animosity that develops over the course of the discourse between proponents of differing views of racial imbalance can easily be eradicated if they can come to an agreement first on which balance they are discussing, theoretical or for lack of better word, practical. If it's practical, then see if they both agree on the skill level that the game should be balanced on. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 23 2014 03:02 bo1b wrote: Muta control has arguably gotten worse from tip top zergs who no longer have to squeeze every drop of goodness from them since the mine nerf. Not including soo of course, that guy plays like drg did in his zvt, such an inspiration. Not talking mutalisk control, but strategy. Mutalisk timings, where they move, what jobs they are supposed to do and what they don't have to do, how many to get. Stuff like that. In mid 2013 Zergs were mainly using mutalisks either as medivac killers and mobile wildcard to help defending lings with drops. Or just to combat (in masses to overwhelm when marine numbers got low or to pick up mines/medivacs). But they never really became offensive tools. These days Zergs go straight over and do some damage, force turrets, keep Terran honest. And then move more intelligently to intercept medivacs and combat drops on their own and optimally support zerglings in counterattacks. And I think Zergs "not controlling as well" is just because Terrans use Thors these days, which makes it stupid to pick off mines. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
The problem with disregarding statements off the cuff like "terran players are just better" is that terran players at the time might just be better, they might not necessarily be faster, but that isn't everything. Maybe there needs to be an adjustment time for zergs or protoss to figure out an answer in those situations. Oh well, just the existence of one player being able to perform at a level high enough to win tournaments without relying on gimmicks or terrible misplays from his opponents is enough to suggest the game is balanced enough for a player to win. So while soo is still consistently making grandfinals I'm happy to let the game run it's course. The maps need to change though, last widowmine time we had frost and whirlwind etc for zergs to play on. Now we just don't. On September 23 2014 03:13 Big J wrote: Not talking mutalisk control, but strategy. Mutalisk timings, where they move, what jobs they are supposed to do and what they don't have to do, how many to get. Stuff like that. In mid 2013 Zergs were mainly using mutalisks either as medivac killers and mobile wildcard to help defending lings with drops. Or just to combat (in masses to overwhelm when marine numbers got low or to pick up mines/medivacs). But they never really became offensive tools. These days Zergs go straight over and do some damage, force turrets, keep Terran honest. And then move more intelligently to intercept medivacs and combat drops on their own and optimally support zerglings in counterattacks. And I think Zergs "not controlling as well" is just because Terrans use Thors these days, which makes it stupid to pick off mines. How else are they supposed to pick off mines? Baneling suicide squads a la drg vs innovation? Infested terran eggs like scarlet did in the gstl? Fact is the muta cloud was the answer and now that an answer has been provided to terran what does zerg have remaining in its arsenal? Maybe the style snute plays will become standard. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
On September 23 2014 03:03 Samx wrote: + Show Spoiler + Been reading this thread for the longest time and the problem is that most discussions are getting nowhere because the concept of balance differs for most players. All too often we have players relating their experience on the ladder only to get snide comments about their experience being irrelevant. So let's get things straight about what is the balance that everyone seems to have an opinion on and more likely than not being influenced by the race they play. Now, let us imagine a hypothetical world where SC2 was only available to the American continents. No one else is able to play the game. Therefore we have Major, winning the past 6 iterations of the cola Americana. A bona fide bonjwa. In this world, we would be discussing now op terran was, because Major just rekt everyone on such a consistent basis. Would anyone be wrong to say based on results, with terran winning the last 6 biggest tournaments and draw conclusions from tournament results? In the hypothetical world, the argument seems pretty sound doesn't it? But in our world, it isn't the case. Outside of the Americas, major despite being a great player hasn't won a major tournament. So in the hypothetical world, the zergs and Protoss in America is losing to major because of balance issue or is it because of skill level? Now, back to our world. Are the marus and boguses losses to protosses due to balance or skill level? That brings me to the first point. There is a theoretical balance of the game. Where the players have immaculate micro and macro where they are able to perform 2000 apm and have practiced on each map 2000 times and able to react perfectly to the information they gather. Is this the balance that we are discussing? Posts that seems to discuss this theoretical balance are for examples pointing out dps/supply/mineral or mules rate of mining or comparison of stats of units or game mechanics like force field. If the theoretical balance is not the thing we want to argue about, then the other balance is the skill level balance. So the pertinent question would then be, at which skill level should the game be balanced? Bronze? Platinum? Gm NA? Gm Korea? Gsl? Proleague? Or zest vs soo vs flash level? Or TheDwf and Avillo level? I find a bit of the animosity that develops over the course of the discourse between proponents of differing views of racial imbalance can easily be eradicated if they can come to an agreement first on which balance they are discussing, theoretical or for lack of better word, practical. If it's practical, then see if they both agree on the skill level that the game should be balanced on. I usually discuss balance based on top pro play, the hightest out there, taking into account GM and maybe masters for the sake of a larger sample when numbers are involved. Thats where things are taken most seriously (including money involved), and its also reference for players on lower levels. It should take into account the mistake to punishment and skill to reward equations, so its not assuming perfect play. DPS/supply/etc are things we can use to understand the game and figure out where the imbalance is. We are discussing the same thing right? Edit: about the maps, the mapmakers did a great job making more balanced maps, then blizzard decided to change terran a second time in the new map pool... | ||
|
SirPinky
United States525 Posts
On September 23 2014 03:03 Samx wrote: Been reading this thread for the longest time and the problem is that most discussions are getting nowhere because the concept of balance differs for most players. All too often we have players relating their experience on the ladder only to get snide comments about their experience being irrelevant. So let's get things straight about what is the balance that everyone seems to have an opinion on and more likely than not being influenced by the race they play. Now, let us imagine a hypothetical world where SC2 was only available to the American continents. No one else is able to play the game. Therefore we have Major, winning the past 6 iterations of the cola Americana. A bona fide bonjwa. In this world, we would be discussing now op terran was, because Major just rekt everyone on such a consistent basis. Would anyone be wrong to say based on results, with terran winning the last 6 biggest tournaments and draw conclusions from tournament results? In the hypothetical world, the argument seems pretty sound doesn't it? But in our world, it isn't the case. Outside of the Americas, major despite being a great player hasn't won a major tournament. So in the hypothetical world, the zergs and Protoss in America is losing to major because of balance issue or is it because of skill level? Now, back to our world. Are the marus and boguses losses to protosses due to balance or skill level? That brings me to the first point. There is a theoretical balance of the game. Where the players have immaculate micro and macro where they are able to perform 2000 apm and have practiced on each map 2000 times and able to react perfectly to the information they gather. Is this the balance that we are discussing? Posts that seems to discuss this theoretical balance are for examples pointing out dps/supply/mineral or mules rate of mining or comparison of stats of units or game mechanics like force field. If the theoretical balance is not the thing we want to argue about, then the other balance is the skill level balance. So the pertinent question would then be, at which skill level should the game be balanced? Bronze? Platinum? Gm NA? Gm Korea? Gsl? Proleague? Or zest vs soo vs flash level? Or TheDwf and Avillo level? I find a bit of the animosity that develops over the course of the discourse between proponents of differing views of racial imbalance can easily be eradicated if they can come to an agreement first on which balance they are discussing, theoretical or for lack of better word, practical. If it's practical, then see if they both agree on the skill level that the game should be balanced on. I don't think anyone is talking about theoretical balance of the game or you would end up with something like this: Therefore, I think balance comes down to how easy races can execute builds and/or strategies with their race and its efficacy at a higher level: Meaning, the easier a build is to execute, then the less powerful it should be at a higher level (i.e. GM), since it is easily scouted and shut down. This is where I see a disparity in parts of SC2. Builds like proxy DT's, Oracles, Blink, 2-base roach all-ins, double factory helbat, for example can beat players WAY over their opponents skill level. The strength of such attacks any Gold or Platinum can learn, but can be executed with the same efficacy on a GM level. The same concept applies to APM (or EPM) where you have a player who might beat another race, but requires nearly twice the APM to do it. As i said earlier, balance, in my opinion, comes down to how much skill you need to play a race and where players with the same skill cap match up that play a different race. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
Too many people in here instantly jump on the ZERG UP ZERG UP bandwagon, ignoring facts, rewriting history, manipulating data, complaining for no real reason. And when? Off the top of my head we've seen Terran take 2 tournaments, Protoss take one and Zerg take one, of which Protoss took the hardest one (being Kespa Cup) and there is a lot to say for MMA's win and Redbull representation. Terran got a player set into Code S finals, but please tell me, did Solar and DRG not fuck up majorly and is therefor a loss acceptable? Big mistakes were made. BIG mistakes. I'm sorry, but as Downfall wrote, those losses had nothing to do with biomine and everything to do with basic stuff, defending hellions and properly scouting/responding. Stop with the whining for no reason, stop drawing any little straw you can find to explain your losses on ladder are because Terran OP Zerg so sad. Seriously. It makes no sense AT ALL to be complaining already. How long has the patch been live, man? Let Zerg adapt. As I said, there's new styles popping up already (scarletts aggressive style, Swarmhosts). Why are you whining? Grow up and have a civilized discussion if you think it is warranted, but please stop acting like a victim of the universe because of buff that wasn't a problem back in the day either. + Show Spoiler + IT WAS NOT A PROBLEM WHEN MINES WERE NERFED. LOOK UP YOUR STATS. Curious, Soulkey, DRG, Scarlett, Snute, Soo, Solar, DRG, a dozen others all dealt with Mines just fine before they got rek'd. /rant. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On September 23 2014 03:15 bo1b wrote: APM is nothing without the strategy and game sense to back it up, I can link you the eapm of drg vs bomber, which by all measurement was pretty 1 sided and you can see drg at 269 eapm vs bombers 180 eapm. That might also have something to do with szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haha | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 23 2014 04:24 SC2Toastie wrote: That might also have something to do with szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haha Eapm doesn't inflate numbers by 50% when building units. Spam isn't included, so failing to build something or running out of larva and the number stops. Also, among zergs drg is an anomoly, really the only other player in the games history to get close to him is yoda. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On September 23 2014 04:32 bo1b wrote: Eapm doesn't inflate numbers by 50% when building units. Spam isn't included, so failing to build something or running out of larva and the number stops. Also, among zergs drg is an anomoly, really the only other player in the games history to get close to him is yoda. I was partially kidding. I did not know that fun fact by the way, thanks! | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On September 23 2014 04:24 SC2Toastie wrote: That might also have something to do with szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haha This. When I play Zerg my APM increases but I feel like most of it is just from holding down sddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd... | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On September 23 2014 04:34 DinoMight wrote: This. When I play Zerg my APM increases but I feel like most of it is just from holding down sddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd... Same for me  Zerg just has more moves to make that take more speed than accuracy (placing rax/gates/pylons/producing units in a queue etc must be quite exact, overlords, lings and creep etc are less exact and thus faster). | ||
| ||
