• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:59
CEST 05:59
KST 12:59
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams9Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 568 users

Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1167

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1266 Next
antiRW
Profile Joined September 2011
United Kingdom117 Posts
October 23 2014 14:28 GMT
#23321
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


"were the rest just makes statements" - Slightly ironic. Do you have any proof that everyone but TheDWF just makes statements? Because it is demonstrably false if you flip through say the last 50 pages of this thread.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
October 23 2014 14:33 GMT
#23322
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.

antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions
Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories
theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total

Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Lexender
Profile Joined September 2013
Mexico2641 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-10-23 14:39:07
October 23 2014 14:34 GMT
#23323
On October 23 2014 23:28 antiRW wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


"were the rest just makes statements" - Slightly ironic. Do you have any proof that everyone but TheDWF just makes statements? Because it is demonstrably false if you flip through say the last 50 pages of this thread.


Whoa what?! way to go personal, I was just pointing something, saying that post that have proof that back them up are better tan blank statements I was not saying that TheDwf is always right or wrong or anything, I guess you can say that I was making a blanket statement myself but thats would just be for the sake of arguing, and I don't have any intention to enter in a personal fight with you because that would just be derailing the thread


Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.

antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions
Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories
theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total

Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.


Yeah that is what I was saying maybe it didn't came across as clear, I apologize for that but what I was saying is that the more data we get the better
SC2Toastie
Profile Blog Joined October 2013
Netherlands5725 Posts
October 23 2014 14:47 GMT
#23324
I got some sick proof of Protoss imbalance in the last 2 weeks!!!

IEM Asia, KR San Jose qualifiers and WECG - Everything won by Toss only :p

Small bit of data?? Doesn't matter had sample.
Mura Ma Man, Dark Da Dude, Super Shot Sos!
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
October 23 2014 14:48 GMT
#23325
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


I think we have a different impression then. What I see is that most people back up their arguments with the one or other statistic. Not everyone and the chosen statistics can be debated, but there is stuff that people base their arguments off.
TheDwf
Profile Joined November 2011
France19747 Posts
October 23 2014 14:50 GMT
#23326
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.

What I was trying to say in that Templar conversation has been misunderstood and I'm too tired/lazy to write X pages to explain it properly, so please just forget about it.
Lexender
Profile Joined September 2013
Mexico2641 Posts
October 23 2014 14:52 GMT
#23327
On October 23 2014 23:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
I got some sick proof of Protoss imbalance in the last 2 weeks!!!

IEM Asia, KR San Jose qualifiers and WECG - Everything won by Toss only :p

Small bit of data?? Doesn't matter had sample.


Better than nothing!!
SC2Toastie
Profile Blog Joined October 2013
Netherlands5725 Posts
October 23 2014 15:11 GMT
#23328
On October 23 2014 23:50 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.

What I was trying to say in that Templar conversation has been misunderstood and I'm too tired/lazy to write X pages to explain it properly, so please just forget about it.

Templars are Daed!
- No, see these 10 examples of Pro players using High Templar.
BUT SOME OF THEY LOSET!!!
- But you see, if they use them in games they can earn money, it must be somewhat viable?
NO TERRAN OP NERF MINE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



Sadly, that's how it usually goes...
Mura Ma Man, Dark Da Dude, Super Shot Sos!
SatedSC2
Profile Blog Joined March 2014
England3012 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-10-23 15:36:30
October 23 2014 15:35 GMT
#23329
--- Nuked ---
Lexender
Profile Joined September 2013
Mexico2641 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-10-23 15:40:36
October 23 2014 15:38 GMT
#23330
On October 24 2014 00:35 SatedSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 24 2014 00:11 SC2Toastie wrote:
Mech isn't viable.
- No, see these 10 examples of pro players using Mech.
BUT SOME OF THEM LOSE
- But you see, if they use them in games where they can earn money, it must be somewhat viable?
NO IMMORTALS OP BUFF TANK WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ಠ_ಠ


To be quite fair, there are waaaay more protoss players that open templar than terran players that use mech.

Edit: also, they never win ._.

But in all honesty

SC2Toastie
Profile Blog Joined October 2013
Netherlands5725 Posts
October 23 2014 15:43 GMT
#23331
Let's stop derailing for now, we're pushing it !
Mura Ma Man, Dark Da Dude, Super Shot Sos!
antiRW
Profile Joined September 2011
United Kingdom117 Posts
October 23 2014 15:49 GMT
#23332
On October 23 2014 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.

antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions
Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories
theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total

Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.


This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.

I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.

But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.
frostalgia
Profile Joined March 2011
United States178 Posts
October 23 2014 16:12 GMT
#23333
The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.

They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.

Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings.
I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.

In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.

This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.

Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.

They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.

Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.
we are all but shadows in the void
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
October 23 2014 16:16 GMT
#23334
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote:
The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.

They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.

Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings.
I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.

In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.

This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.

Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.

They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.

Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.


If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings.
The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
October 23 2014 16:17 GMT
#23335
On October 24 2014 00:49 antiRW wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.

antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions
Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories
theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total

Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.


This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.

I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.

But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.


You did realize that I painted multiple people in the worse of light to show that it's possible why people disbelieve one piece of evidence over another right?

Playa is a GM who uses first hand field experience to orient his point of view on how the reality of the matchup is.
TheDWF places emphasis on individual game analysis to better discuss specific unit interaction that gets glossed by pure statistical analysis.

Heck, I was one of the first posters saying how much I loved your analysis.

There is a grain of truth in all of them, and a level of bias in all of them. Because there is no holy grail that can act as our compass. We follow the arguments, and our opinions and conclusions from those arguments will change as time passes. The goal is to never stop discussing no matter how few answers it leads.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Clonester
Profile Joined August 2014
Germany2808 Posts
October 23 2014 16:26 GMT
#23336
On October 24 2014 01:16 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote:
The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.

They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.

Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings.
I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.

In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.

This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.

Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.

They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.

Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.


If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings.
The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.


Maybe just remove it and try it with the impaler ( or what ever the evolution of Hydra is called with long range single targed dmg? )
Bomber, Attacker, DD, SOMEBODY, NiKo, Nex, Spidii
frostalgia
Profile Joined March 2011
United States178 Posts
October 23 2014 16:29 GMT
#23337
On October 24 2014 01:16 Big J wrote:
If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings.
The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.


Exactly the role Locusts should have, regardless of their intention when they were created. Now their role should be a replacement for Zerglings, ones that can respawn for free. The respawn should be their focus in midgame, and damage-sink in lategame.

They are still ranged units, so they'll still pair with zerglings or broodlins just fine.. They just won't be more powerful than zerglings or broodlings unless combined, and waiting for a respawn to deal double damage for 10-15 seconds still makes them potentially strong in late game, just not an annoying seige unit that is impossible to bypass, creating stagnant deadzones.

Nerfing locust strength and toughness in exchange for speed and life length is a wise way to make Swarm Host a more interesting unit in the right hands. At the highest level most zergs would be loving speedier free units, and making them weaker will only help stop stagnation in Swarm Host play.
we are all but shadows in the void
TokO
Profile Joined July 2011
Norway577 Posts
October 23 2014 17:08 GMT
#23338
I have an issue with your suggestion. There is a point of balance that needs to be achieved by a unit like that, and in my opinion it is really hard to hit.

Offensively, they are ok. This seems to be a unit that is motivated by counter-attacks and possibly surrounds. This is fine. Lower durability and strength means that fortified positions are better against them, while they still retain potency against unfortified expands and reinforcement lines.

In combat, they are more difficult. At what point do they become useless against splash and dps based compositions. I assume that their role in this situation is to act as cannon-fodder. But how do you balance them so that their resources are not wasted in periods where the units haven't spawned, and that they don't spawn so often that armies are getting swarmed for almost no effort? If you increase their lifetime, I assume respawn timer has to go up as well. This creates a challenge for the zerg player.

Of course, this is only considering the current arsenals of the two respective races, Blizzard might change units in ways that will alleviate these issues and create a niche for a unit like this.
antiRW
Profile Joined September 2011
United Kingdom117 Posts
October 23 2014 17:16 GMT
#23339
On October 24 2014 01:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 24 2014 00:49 antiRW wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:21 Lexender wrote:
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.

I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.

There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...


The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.

And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.

I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.

So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.

But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.


TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.


Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.

antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions
Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories
theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total

Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.


This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.

I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.

But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.


You did realize that I painted multiple people in the worse of light to show that it's possible why people disbelieve one piece of evidence over another right?

Playa is a GM who uses first hand field experience to orient his point of view on how the reality of the matchup is.
TheDWF places emphasis on individual game analysis to better discuss specific unit interaction that gets glossed by pure statistical analysis.

Heck, I was one of the first posters saying how much I loved your analysis.

There is a grain of truth in all of them, and a level of bias in all of them. Because there is no holy grail that can act as our compass. We follow the arguments, and our opinions and conclusions from those arguments will change as time passes. The goal is to never stop discussing no matter how few answers it leads.


Ah, so the *if you* was actually directed at the other poster, not at me. Apologies!
MstrJinbo
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1251 Posts
October 23 2014 17:21 GMT
#23340
On October 24 2014 01:16 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote:
The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.

They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.

Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings.
I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.

In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.

This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.

Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.

They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.

Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.


If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings.
The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.


Should replace the free units with spikes that travel from underground, dealing damage to units in a line. Just sayin
Prev 1 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1266 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 1m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 236
RuFF_SC2 161
Livibee 65
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 1372
Sharp 325
Zeus 189
HiyA 135
Sexy 77
NaDa 72
Icarus 6
Britney 0
League of Legends
JimRising 763
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 312
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox538
Other Games
summit1g12483
shahzam891
ViBE238
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 38
Other Games
BasetradeTV14
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 103
• davetesta35
• practicex 29
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo777
• Stunt346
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
7h 1m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
10h 1m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 6h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
CSO Cup
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 14h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.