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.
That is my biggest problem with this suggested change. Forcing detection as a requirement to move out onto the map will have an enormous (and most likely negative) impact on the game. It will greatly slow down the game, and DTs are also a pretty hard counter to any kind of drop/runby play.
Its unrealistic to recommend Terran get a Raven before moving out, given that a pair of medivacs is already necessary.
Combined with PO I would be surprised if we saw a single engagement before 15 minutes unless the Protoss chooses to attack.
Again, it all comes down to cost. If you double the build time on templar archives (to match the dark shrine) I don't think this change will ever come into play. In fact, it might even be a nerf to DTs since it will both be more expensive, and everyone will always be prepared for it.
If you are just tossing the DTs for free onto every Templar play things start to get dicey.
It's really unfair that this argument never apply to widow mines though. Also that Terran's always seem to not care about the fact that a DT costs 125 gas.
Also, I think the argument that DT forces Terran to stay in base until mobile detection is a weak one. DT's have always been in the game, never have I seen a progame where DT forced Terran to get a raven. Terrans do have scans, and since other plays have traditionally made terran play more defensive, such as early colossus and 6-queen plays, why can't templar also be one such play? By most other measures, it is weaker than colossus play, so having a harass advantage doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches.
It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore).
There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. 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.
Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves.
How so? 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. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp.
Nerfing blink means it sucks always Nerfing map means blink sucks at a specific area I interest
For example.
Making air units free to build buffs air units. Making all maps island maps buffs air units. Does that make both changes equal? No, it wouldn't.
They nerfed the Mothershipcore. It still doesn't suck always. It just is weaker in blink rushes.
And the last line is ridiculous, I have never said that every two changes are equal. Just that often you can do similar things with maps and balance changes. And that in general, map changes are balance changes.
But you did say it. Right when, you know, said this:
How so? 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.
I even made bold the exact words you said that that they are completely equivalent just so you can see it for yourself.
And the mothership does suck now, when compared to what it was before. A map change without a mothership core change would make the mothership core still awesome. Now it is weaker. Nerfing the mothership core makes suck more than it did before. Players learned to accept this, players accept what they are given. But the mothership core does suck now comparatively.
Weakening a unit makes it weaker. Changing a map does not make it weaker. They are two completely different changes.
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.
I read the entire conversation. You're either a bad writer, wrong, or both. Why not be a man and admit it?
Really? I found his point very easy to understand: Some type of changes on units can have the same effect as map changes. I think this is just another case of Thievingmagpie misunderstanding people on purpose.
Actually no, read the entire discussion. It sprung out because I said this:
"Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches."
He i arguing that constant patches is the same as just changing the map pool.
He believe there is an optimal version of sc2 that we shoul patch/force into being and I believe that there is no such thing and that we should only patch when it is near impossible for even the Maru/Soo/Zests of the world to adapt to the difficulty, and even then to not interfere for along time after.
He believes that patches are no different than changing map pools and hence should be something we should be willing to easily lean to. I think that that is a load of horse shit since patches changes things way more than map changes change: not all tournaments play the same maps, not all strategies are used on the same maps. Changing a map to nerf/buff x will also do the same to all other things similar and not similar to X.
The ony way you would not know that would be if you only read the last 1-2 posts where he had backtracked his conversation away from his initial argument.
Does anyone else find it stupid that Colossus can climb up and down cliffs but can't step down the side of a ramp?
I lost a game yesterday because I tried to kite back my Colo and it just got stuck dancing on the ramp lol. Was defending by natural on King Sejong and the Colo was on my main ramp.
I think having merged DT/HT might be a little problematic. Granted in BW it was this way, but you couldn't instantly warp in either. You had to make them on your side of the map.
Warping in 2 DTs then immediately researching storm and getting HTs at home seems a little strong. But increasing the cost of the DT/HT building/making it take longer to build would weaken DT harass from its current form.
On September 26 2014 03:07 DinoMight wrote: I think having merged DT/HT might be a little problematic. Granted in BW it was this way, but you couldn't instantly warp in either. You had to make them on your side of the map.
Warping in 2 DTs then immediately researching storm and getting HTs at home seems a little strong. But increasing the cost of the DT/HT building/making it take longer to build would weaken DT harass from its current form.
So I'm not surea bout this...
It was not that way in BW. In BW 2 DT = A Dark Archon which is much different than the powerful archons we have today. A Dark Achron was untterly useless except maybe for mindcontrol or occasional maelstrom versus Zerg.
On September 26 2014 03:07 DinoMight wrote: I think having merged DT/HT might be a little problematic. Granted in BW it was this way, but you couldn't instantly warp in either. You had to make them on your side of the map.
Warping in 2 DTs then immediately researching storm and getting HTs at home seems a little strong. But increasing the cost of the DT/HT building/making it take longer to build would weaken DT harass from its current form.
So I'm not surea bout this...
It was not that way in BW. In BW 2 DT = A Dark Archon which is much different than the powerful archons we have today. A Dark Achron was untterly useless except maybe for mindcontrol or occasional maelstrom versus Zerg.
I think it only really happened once in pro games right? PvZ late game Dark archon play to stun ultralisl pushes allowing the Protoss army to shred 1/3 of the Zerg push without resistance.
On September 26 2014 04:06 Wombat_NI wrote: I saw more games where Protoss foregoes/loses Stargates and pray for a good Maelstrom/Storm combo to deal with Mutas
I was thinking more of a "proactive strategy" and less of a "oh shit, I guess let's hope he clumps!" Strategy.
On September 26 2014 04:06 Wombat_NI wrote: I saw more games where Protoss foregoes/loses Stargates and pray for a good Maelstrom/Storm combo to deal with Mutas
I was thinking more of a "proactive strategy" and less of a "oh shit, I guess let's hope he clumps!" Strategy.
But touché good sir tou-fucking-Ché Guiverra
It wasn't a "hope he clumps." Mutas were always, 100% clumped, at every point in BW. You didn't ever see them unclumped. It was rather having the DA in the right spot to get off the maelstrom while simultaneously having a HT at the same spot to cast storm, while also microing your army, was a huge APM sink. Also, mutas could just avoid the DA (while corsairs were very mobile).
On September 26 2014 03:07 DinoMight wrote: I think having merged DT/HT might be a little problematic. Granted in BW it was this way, but you couldn't instantly warp in either. You had to make them on your side of the map.
Warping in 2 DTs then immediately researching storm and getting HTs at home seems a little strong. But increasing the cost of the DT/HT building/making it take longer to build would weaken DT harass from its current form.
So I'm not surea bout this...
It was not that way in BW. In BW 2 DT = A Dark Archon which is much different than the powerful archons we have today. A Dark Achron was untterly useless except maybe for mindcontrol or occasional maelstrom versus Zerg.
I think it only really happened once in pro games right? PvZ late game Dark archon play to stun ultralisl pushes allowing the Protoss army to shred 1/3 of the Zerg push without resistance.
DA were always built in drawn out games where the Toss went air (typically after opening sair/reaver), as Zerg had to counter with Devours. DA could maelstrom devours. If it was mostly a ground game, only in extreme instances were DA used, because typically the gas was better spent used for Archon / Reaver combos. You'd still see them them on occasion.
Dreamhack will be a good tournament to see the overall balance now, all races have good players there. I really want to see how the top zergs hold themselves in TvZ now.
On September 26 2014 16:25 mCon.Hephaistas wrote: Dreamhack will be a good tournament to see the overall balance now, all races have good players there. I really want to see how the top zergs hold themselves in TvZ now.
One single tournament is never a good way to judge balance. But yeah, pretty hyped for the tournament. soO is hopefully gonna wreck through it.
He believes that patches are no different than changing map pools and hence should be something we should be willing to easily lean to. I think that that is a load of horse shit since patches changes things way more than map changes change: not all tournaments play the same maps, not all strategies are used on the same maps. Changing a map to nerf/buff x will also do the same to all other things similar and not similar to X.
No he says that patches can have the same effect as map changes. Some patch changes will ofc differ.
For instance: Blink cooldown buff increase --> General blink nerf Blink being unable to go into highground --> Similar effect as changing maps.
He doesn't say anywhere that every single patch always has the same effect as a map change.
His second point is that by fixing core balance issues through patches, it allows mapmakers more creativity instead of being restricted by certain rules (for instance forcefields, blink restricts map design).
The issue I have with you is that for some reason every debate you have been invovled in, the discussion seems to center about what people actually said/what they meant/something completely else instead of focussing on whether there is merit to their arguments. All other posters can argue "normally" against each other in this forum regardless of whether they agree or disagree.
But you really seem to either completely ignore the intention of the posters or just intentionally trying to misunderstand them.
As to the actual point I am of the opinion that if changes improve the game, then go for them.
If this involves map tweaks, so be it. If it involves patching, even race-specific patching then go for it. This being in the case of something being problematic beyond the 'let the metagame settle' level.
Patching by maps is not optimal given that the community doesn't have the keys to its own server and still relies on the ladder for a lot of its playing. Waiting for patches is not optimal because the ball is in Blizzard's court.
IF Blizzard is smart IMO they'll delay LoTV long enough to implement proper monetised systems to enable private servers, so that in the long-run they can sit back, relax and the community/organisations like Kespa can run the eSport side of Starcraft in perpetuity.
There are problems with potential scene fragmentation, but that's what I see/hope will happen.
It's really unfair that this argument never apply to widow mines though. Also that Terran's always seem to not care about the fact that a DT costs 125 gas.
That's because making the argument is absurd. Widow mines:
1.) are only cloaked in one spot. The have to uncloak to move. 2.) can't attack buildings 3.) fire once every 40 seconds
Basically a widow mine gets into your base and you aren't ready, it a big annoyance. If a dark Templar gets into your base, it will kill everything.
He believes that patches are no different than changing map pools and hence should be something we should be willing to easily lean to. I think that that is a load of horse shit since patches changes things way more than map changes change: not all tournaments play the same maps, not all strategies are used on the same maps. Changing a map to nerf/buff x will also do the same to all other things similar and not similar to X.
No he says that patches can have the same effect as map changes. Some patch changes will ofc differ.
For instance: Blink cooldown buff increase --> General blink nerf Blink being unable to go into highground --> Similar effect as changing maps.
He doesn't say anywhere that every single patch always has the same effect as a map change.
His second point is that by fixing core balance issues through patches, it allows mapmakers more creativity instead of being restricted by certain rules (for instance forcefields, blink restricts map design).
The issue I have with you is that for some reason every debate you have been invovled in, the discussion seems to center about what people actually said/what they meant/something completely else instead of focussing on whether there is merit to their arguments. All other posters can argue "normally" against each other in this forum regardless of whether they agree or disagree.
But you really seem to either completely ignore the intention of the posters or just intentionally trying to misunderstand them.
There is no misunderstanding. Hence why I said to him that we have fundamental difference in opinion. Being that I responded to when he said:
"That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later."
Wherein I tell him that I don't believe we should patch constantly, that patching should be something held back as long as possible.
His argument against that it is that it's no different than map changes, and hence why it should be okay. That is the core of his argument.
But map changes are ephemeral and can be ignored from tournament to tournament, from season to season. GSL can think they like blink-able maps while mlg can hate it. Ladder could have gold bases while tournaments can have no gold bases. Maps can be put on a veto system, maps could also be in a draft system where each player brings his own preferred maps to each match.
Map changes does not fix or repair a core problem unless the group of players playing it agree on it. Different groups of players can have different opinions an map changes allows them to craft their own micro-community where the metagame is one thing or another.
Patches are changes forced upon a the totality. Even if your community LOVEs strategy X, you will lose it and be unable to play it amongst each other if the change is a patch instead of merely a shift map making philosophies. By nature they cannot be ever the same and hence cannot be comparable.
It's really unfair that this argument never apply to widow mines though. Also that Terran's always seem to not care about the fact that a DT costs 125 gas.
That's because making the argument is absurd. Widow mines:
1.) are only cloaked in one spot. The have to uncloak to move. 2.) can't attack buildings 3.) fire once every 40 seconds
Basically a widow mine gets into your base and you aren't ready, it a big annoyance. If a dark Templar gets into your base, it will kill everything.
You missed the argument I was objecting to. That DT's prevent move-outs and aggressive plays without bringing mobile detection. (I tried to say that this was unfair when widow mines basically negates any prolonged assault by both protoss and zerg unless they bring mobile detection with them, and for a significantly cheaper price than other races similar mechanisms such as DT's and Swarm Hosts.)
The offensive capacity of the DT themselves were accounted for in the previous pages, in which I argued that the change wouldn't necessarily affect the power of the dt plays, as they would come into a play when the Terran has ample opportunity to defend.
On September 26 2014 21:41 MstrJinbo wrote: Basically a widow mine gets into your base and you aren't ready, it a big annoyance. If a dark Templar gets into your base, it will kill everything.
This is quite a misrepresentation as well. Both counter-plays against DT and Widow Mines is similar in that you pull away units while you wait for either a scan, turret or an observer, after which you clear out the DT or Widow Mine. Their dps is of course relative to their costs.
By the way, if you didn't read the posts, this isn't a discussion whether there is any imbalance in the units. It's more about the lack of diversity in styles and builds.
EPT
tou-fucking-Ché Guiverra 
