Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1112

On September 25 2014 14:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:


But you did say it. Right when, you know, said this:

On September 25 2014 15:06 bo1b wrote:

Yet again thieving magpie misinterprets something in order to continue an argument. Heres a hint btw, him saying one example of a map change being equal to a unit change doesn't think he means they're always the same.

When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area.

Changing a map only changes the dynamic on *that* map, and nowhere else

Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often.

On September 25 2014 17:03 Big J wrote:
at least rage at the right person ^^

Again, nowhere in this sentence do I say "every balance change is equivalent to any map change". I merely imply that there can be balance changes that do the same thing that a map change does.

it
pronoun
[third person singular]
Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified
source: oxford dictionary



Didn't say anything different. I was also never talking about chaning *only one* map. I was talking about balance features that have to be on all maps to keep the game in balance like natural choke points, main base ramps, certain distances, certain cliffsetups... Which I would rather see replaced by balance changes*.
E.g. I rather have a Steppes of War like map in the pool and drone rushing nerfed, then removing all SoW-like maps. (if this could be done with drone rushing; not that it can, SoW has probably a lot of features that you'd have to change)


*again, because I believe adding some artificial requirment like "blink requires a forge" would not limit mapmakers, it would not interfer with most blink plays, but it would specifically weaken PvT blink rushing which is forgeless. Also without nerfing reapers, or other cute cliffplays.

On September 25 2014 16:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Well either you meant what you said, or you didn't. If you only meant part of what you said, then you didn't mean what you said.

But lets pretend you said it correctly the first time. You assume that map changes is sometimes equal to a unit change. Do you make that assumption? Does a body of judges make that assumption? Or are you just making up arbitrary rules as you go that only sometimes is true and sometimes isn't based on some half-assed idea you typed too quickly before posting.

Here's the thing. They're not the same. Changing a map only changes the dynamic on *that* map, and nowhere else. Changing a unit changes its dynamic on ALL maps. So no, they are not even remotely similar. It was silly for you to say otherwise and its amateurish of you to pull away from the discussion to try to make claims that I am misunderstanding you just because I re-post the exact words you say.

In a discussion thread about balance you can't arbitrarily say things are the same just because you want them to be. You can't say something is true and cry foul when people call you out on bullshit.

On September 25 2014 17:57 bo1b wrote:

You're so full of shit.

You can admit you read something wrong instead of assuming the other person wrote something wrong. btw my names not blob.

On September 25 2014 15:03 Big J wrote:


Yeah, I said it. In this scenario. Quote me when you find the quote that every change is equivalent.

However, just because your two completely arbitrary changes are not equivalent does not mean there are none that are equivalent. Basic logic.

And of course making a map bigger makes a SH weaker. There's a fucking huge difference whether I can attack you by sitting in my own natural, or whether I need to be all across some huge distance with them.

On September 25 2014 21:50 TokO wrote:
I'm going to throw this in here to get some constructive discussion.

Complaint
            Problem: Protoss lacks complex harass options in the midgame.
            Solution: Merge Templar Archives and Dark Shrine.
            Side Effects:

            
• Gives Protoss a greater breadth of harass options.
                    Unlocking Templar Archives would unlock both DT Harass and Storm Harass options.
              
• Does not weaken core composition as much.
                    In PvT, the DT's would become in the main tech path, either early-midgame or late-midgame, but never lategame as in the current set-up, unless the Protoss stays on Colossus-Blink for a very long time. In my opinion, this would increase the diversity of Protoss midgame harass, and encourage more action spread across the map, while slightly nerfing Terran pressure in the crucial time when Protoss is attempting to secure a third base.
                    In PvZ, this represents giving Protoss a slight buff in the most crucial mid-game timing, by allowing Protoss to put on counter-pressure, while teching towards something that bolsters the core composition. In return, this could justify maps with more open thirds, that are disadvantageous to Protoss, allowing for greater flexibility when it comes to map making.
              
• Encourages breadth of play for Protoss.
                    This change would make it easier for Protoss to play a Templar style, and lessen the dominance of Colossus styles. Why would this not necessarily cause imbalance; the counter-play to Templar-Chargelot is for both races, Zerg and Terran, not very far from their desired core composition regardless. Zerg are the least nerfed, because of the prevalence and ease of access to spores and overseers, it would increase the difficulty though. Terran would be more disadvantaged, mostly because consistent mobile detection is very difficult to access for Terran. However, I want to argue that Terran anti-Chargelot Templar has never been stronger than it is now, given the current situation with widow mines and hellbats, as well as considering that in WoL, Chargelot Templar could often be combatted with the core composition with diligent kiting. It is for this reason that I think that we could increase the attractiveness for Templar play, without necessarily causing the match-ups to be imbalanced.

            Main argument: Protoss's complex harass lies further from their core compositions than the other races. This can be justified by the warpgate mechanic, but I think this argument is negated by the fact that other races also have access to swift and flexible harass options. As well as the fact that considering "basic" harass, Protoss has the weakest of all three races. Indeed, Protoss can often overwhelm static defenses, but this is often justified by the amount invested in said harass.

In PvT, I like to compare the Widow Mine to the DT. Both harass options require two elements to stop (detection and force), the DT is mobile, so it is not as simple to hold, as a widow mine is, but has five times the gas cost, so it is justified in that sense. However, in terms of their degree of seperation to the core build. DT is far off the Widow Mine. Widow mines can be produced out of an otherwise unused Factory, while DT requires the DT-shrine which is a 150/150 investment. In most other senses, they are very comparable and equal, in terms of difficulty of sneaking by ground route, defense (forge, robo - orbital, engi bay, equal parts of core build), ease of shipping into opponents base, although I medivacs are slightly more accessible than warp prism.

As for air harass, both complex, 5 phoenix vs. cloak banshees, and simpler harass, such as oracle vs. regular banshees/raven. I think both races are equal. Both have a similar degree of seperation to the core build. Tech lab + build time is about equal to Stargate investment, I think, with Protoss's edge cancelled out by the slighty more expensive units.

However, for basic unit harass, Protoss severely lacks the flexibility and diversity of Terran. Consider marine-marauder-medivac. The extent to which the whole Terran core can become a harassing unit, and then be able to fly off without cooldown, is quite unmatched by Protoss. I don't mean that Terran is more flexible because Protoss is not able to field the same amount of units, they can. However, for Protoss, they have to produce the units in the harass, and their evacuation abilities are much weaker. The difference with Terran is that their production and harass are independent, and can happen seamlessly. Protoss has to harass in timings when their gateway cooldowns are off, or risk not producing units from them at times, while Terran can harass at all times without needing to think about the production, as it'll go on independently. Given this asymmetric relation, which is not at all imbalanced in my opinion, I don't think it would be that overpowered in favour of Protoss to merge the Dark Shrine with Templar Archives.

In PvZ, I think that Zerg has an inherent mobility advantage. This helps them deal with harass on their own creep, especially if they play with more focus on defense. I think tech paths such as Overlord Drop and Speed, have a similar distance to their core composition as a DT shrine has, however, they do unlock more flexibility in terms of harass options.

In terms of the general harass options, I think that zerg and protoss are very similar. However, at the point when a Protoss chooses Chargelot Templar, I think that they need to focus a lot more on their army, due to their inherent weakness of composition, which kind of makes harass more limited as a result of opportunity cost, therefore, alleviating this weakness with my proposal would not necessarily lead the game into imbalance, but it would more likely invite a greater diversity of plays and compositions.

I justify calling Chargelot Templar "weaker" to the fact that they aren't being played much, relative to blink colossus and blink sentry in PvT and PvZ respectively. This change wouldn't necessarily make the composition stronger, but it would buy time and encourage more action-packed games, by giving Protoss more tools to tax the actions of their opponent.

On September 25 2014 21:50 TokO wrote:
I'm going to throw this in here to get some constructive discussion.

Complaint
            Problem: Protoss lacks complex harass options in the midgame.
            Solution: Merge Templar Archives and Dark Shrine.

On September 25 2014 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Just to be clear, you're actually joking about that, right?

On September 25 2014 23:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

There's on part missing, side-effects. For one, it boosts P versus both T and Z and especially the latter is dubious in this situation. Yet, the main problem I see with DT is that they need a large downside not to be unfair. It's OK if they do damage, but they shouldn't give an advantage against a good defence. If they have no cost, you can warp in one or none, but still force spores, turrets, etc. And then play greedy to get more HT and enter the late game ahead. In my mind, the threat of DTs is great enough to require a sufficient cost where failing to do damage would put the P behind.

On September 25 2014 23:02 r691175002 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

This is just a bad idea on several levels. Firstly, what cost and build time are you suggesting? A 350/300 100s building would be impossible to transition into. Lowering the build time makes DT cheese too dangerous.

On September 25 2014 23:02 r691175002 wrote:
Secondly, the idea of combining Templar and DT tech is just silly. Blizzard would never do it, so why even suggest it.

Finally, I don't think anyone wants DTs to become standard play. It would make the game almost unplayable in the lower leagues, and seriously mess with PvT balance. It also completely discourages active play and harassment since being on the map without detection is suicide.

On September 25 2014 23:02 r691175002 wrote:
I'm not convinced by your argument that Protoss lacks options either. They have by far the strongest harassment at the start of the game, the greatest number of options in the midgame, and again have the strongest harassment in the late game (As a warp prism can dump 20 supply in 5 seconds without castrating your main army).

On September 25 2014 23:17 Meavis wrote:
it's a distraction move for all the balance whine.

here's something I want to see some discussion around:
Complaint
            Problem: Colossus/templar ball is to strong in TvP lategame.
            Solution: Reduce thermal lance from +3 to +2 range
            Side Effects:

            gives bio more room to enclose before the first hits, reducing the scaling effect on the deathball.

            ghosts have some more breathing room to snipe/emp before getting melted

            colossus is slightly weaker ofcourse

            kiting potential on colossus is lowered

            possible imbalance in PvZ as colossus have to get closer to vipers

On September 25 2014 22:45 -_- wrote:


I read the entire conversation. You're either a bad writer, wrong, or both. Why not be a man and admit it?

On September 25 2014 23:44 TokO wrote:
Maybe you need to get ravens. Which could mean more harass options for terrans in terms of autoturrets, as well as MM+PDD harass to win against blink. Would definitely increase skill cap.