EPTThis is why the Tiers are stupid.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1189
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
This is why the Tiers are stupid. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:00 DinoMight wrote: By that logic Medivacs are a higher tier than Ghosts. But we all know Ghosts hit the field much later than Medivacs and are more expensive to produce. This is why the Tiers are stupid. Ghosts hit a fuck tonne sooner than medivacs, they just don't have a target worth their cost. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote: Ghosts hit a fuck tonne sooner than medivacs, they just don't have a target worth their cost. Which makes them a late game unit, despite requiring less infrastructure. Which is why I think the Tier system is dumb. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote: Ghosts hit a fuck tonne sooner than medivacs, they just don't have a target worth their cost. That's a big part of the problem. Ghosts could make things lot easier against mutas (basic attack, snipe) and banelings (snipes) and allow mech play in TvP if they weren't that expensive and had a micro which allowed them to stay better on the battlefield, making them part of the Midgame and diversifying compositions. Reducing costs at the expense of nerfing it a bit could be a very interesting point for the meta. However, Blizzard prefered to opt for Megamines instead. I don't understand the logic behind Ghosts being the same tech level as factory units and not being competitive until lategame. That's a fail. Things could be really interesting if they could be used in a tech level (and costs) similar (indeed lower) to tanks but with barracks production similar to a marauder. We would have to think then about the limits for its abilities. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11908 Posts
On November 04 2014 01:43 TheDwf wrote: Yes, the entitlement of non-Korean Terrans is legendary with their everlasting domination I fail to see the link between domination and entitlement. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:38 Nebuchad wrote: I fail to see the link between domination and entitlement. It's his attempt to sneak in some balance whine. Besides, all Terrans are entitled to domination simply for being better human beings than the rest of us, haven't you heard? | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:51 DinoMight wrote: It's his attempt to sneak in some balance whine. Besides, all Terrans are entitled to domination simply for being better human beings than the rest of us, haven't you heard? That's what Avilo likes to say everytime. Terran pride is a bit ridiculous. They got their campaing first, but should be all they are proud of. Terran pride talk and blaming Protoss is half of what's left in SC2 | ||
|
johnbongham
451 Posts
On November 04 2014 03:54 JCoto wrote: That's what Avilo likes to say everytime. Terran pride is a bit ridiculous. They got their campaing first, but should be all they are proud of. Terran pride talk and blaming Protoss is half of what's left in SC2 yeah, sucks that us lower level terrans will never catch a break in TvP but what are ya gonna do? | ||
|
Spect8rCraft
649 Posts
From a few of the ZvTs I've witnessed in the Ro16, it seems like with the thor target reprioritization, 4M-thor has been fleshed out as the counter against muta-ling-bane. That's nice for Terran, but because of that, I'm starting to get the vibe that mines are no longer promoting as much micro from the Zerg as they are promoting caution. Instead of sending single lings to defuse mines (which still do happen, albeit in more isolated cases and seldom with armies), the Zerg (or at least soO, from what I've seen) are trying to set up flanks and bum-rushing in hopes of a surround and that mines do their work on the bio force more than on the zerglings and banelings. Even if banes survive not being blown to smithereens by mines, they often have to avoid being soaked up by thors and marauders; that usually means a great deal of banes are lost before they can do significant damage. While flanks are nice and all--I'm one to believe that zerg should've been doing this far, far sooner--I feel like the presence of mines deter many from doing such maneuvers. Yes, there are runbys, but those are slightly different, and achieve different objectives, from flanks. Ergo, perhaps a slight nerf to mines is in order: I simply propose that mines revert to their one-shot version back in the beta. Even though most mines produced are thrown into the gutter that is muta-ling-bane before they can do their work, the returns from a surviving mine tend to easily outweigh the losses of a half-dozen. A mine that survives to fire twice within an army environment will easily destroy several folds' worth of zerglings and banelings, and if it can deal some damage to mutalisks, all the more benefit to deter them from Terrans' approaching thors. Ergo, perhaps resetting mines to single shot will do a few things: force Terran to be more considerate in mine positioning (which should be marginal by now, since many already do know how to use them well), and embolden zerg to take up more aggressive off-creep positioning. I believe the latter is a major issue that often prevents Zerg from closing out games against Terran. Single-shot mines also have a slight benefit in TvP, in that Protoss need not prioritize detection if they split and focus-fire well enough. Thoughts? | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:06 johnbongham wrote: yeah, sucks that us lower level terrans will never catch a break in TvP but what are ya gonna do? Planting mines and activating stim from drops while the Toss teches like crazy and tries to defend it trying to be everywhere without losing too much. If ghosts were priced and played according to their tech level, you could EMP them and have flexibility. Then the MMM could be reworked a bit in synergy with your new flexibility instead of being that stiff. If you could use more than half your bio units would be simply nice. Earlier and cheaper (but less spameable) EMPs in TvP, what do you think about? Harder TvP with that? | ||
|
r691175002
249 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:08 Spect8rCraft wrote: Slight derail: From a few of the ZvTs I've witnessed in the Ro16, it seems like with the thor target reprioritization, 4M-thor has been fleshed out as the counter against muta-ling-bane. That's nice for Terran, but because of that, I'm starting to get the vibe that mines are no longer promoting as much micro from the Zerg as they are promoting caution. Instead of sending single lings to defuse mines (which still do happen, albeit in more isolated cases and seldom with armies), the Zerg (or at least soO, from what I've seen) are trying to set up flanks and bum-rushing in hopes of a surround and that mines do their work on the bio force more than on the zerglings and banelings. Even if banes survive not being blown to smithereens by mines, they often have to avoid being soaked up by thors and marauders; that usually means a great deal of banes are lost before they can do significant damage. While flanks are nice and all--I'm one to believe that zerg should've been doing this far, far sooner--I feel like the presence of mines deter many from doing such maneuvers. Yes, there are runbys, but those are slightly different, and achieve different objectives, from flanks. Ergo, perhaps a slight nerf to mines is in order: I simply propose that mines revert to their one-shot version back in the beta. Even though most mines produced are thrown into the gutter that is muta-ling-bane before they can do their work, the returns from a surviving mine tend to easily outweigh the losses of a half-dozen. A mine that survives to fire twice within an army environment will easily destroy several folds' worth of zerglings and banelings, and if it can deal some damage to mutalisks, all the more benefit to deter them from Terrans' approaching thors. Ergo, perhaps resetting mines to single shot will do a few things: force Terran to be more considerate in mine positioning (which should be marginal by now, since many already do know how to use them well), and embolden zerg to take up more aggressive off-creep positioning. I believe the latter is a major issue that often prevents Zerg from closing out games against Terran. Single-shot mines also have a slight benefit in TvP, in that Protoss need not prioritize detection if they split and focus-fire well enough. Thoughts? SoO wasn't just bum-rushing. With the exception of one engagement (high ground mines, game 3), he diffused nearly every single mine with one or two lings in every location that he was attacking from which is just mind-bending. I'd consider that level of micro to be equal or more demanding that terran splitting since it involves splitting near instantly at two or more locations simultaneously. I don't think making mines one-shot would achieve what you are hoping for. They would still discourage flanks to the same degree, and their strength in the initial engagement would be identical. It would just be a huge nerf to the parade push style. I also think it would cause problems defending certain all-ins where where the hold continues for several minutes against waves of reinforcements. A "surviving" mine is no more likely to get a money shot the second time than it is the first. I think right now the dynamic between mutaling and 4m is pretty much optimal from a spectator point of view. I cannot think of any simple change to those units that wouldn't have far too large of an impact in the matchup. I think that ZvT would be better balanced with changes to the early or late game instead. Something as simple as a spine crawler buff could easily snowball into a couple more drones in the midgame, which turns into just enough army supply to make a difference. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:28 r691175002 wrote: SoO wasn't just bum-rushing. With the exception of one engagement (high ground mines, game 3), he diffused nearly every single mine with one or two lings in every location that he was attacking from which is just mind-bending. I'd consider that level of micro to be equal or more demanding that terran splitting since it involves splitting near instantly at two or more locations simultaneously. I don't think making mines one-shot would achieve what you are hoping for. They would still discourage flanks to the same degree, and their strength in the initial engagement would be identical. It would just be a huge nerf to the parade push style. I also think it would cause problems defending certain all-ins where where the hold continues for several minutes against waves of reinforcements. A "surviving" mine is no more likely to get a money shot the second time than it is the first. I think right now the dynamic between mutaling and 4m is pretty much optimal from a spectator point of view. I cannot think of any simple change to those units that wouldn't have far too large of an impact in the matchup. I think that ZvT would be better balanced with changes to the early or late game instead. Something as simple as a spine crawler buff could easily snowball into a couple more drones in the midgame, which turns into just enough army supply to make a difference. +1 armor and slightly better movement speed for the Broodlord. Slight better Area Size for Binding Clouds (Viper) 18 projectile speed for Infestor's Fungal Growth. | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
On November 03 2014 21:18 TheDwf wrote: "Hardcore theorycraft." Lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yEpZIVCWI1#t=11h04m00s http://www.twitch.tv/pughydude/b/568130257?t=1h43m00s http://www.twitch.tv/pughydude/b/580669213?t=1h30m50s http://www.twitch.tv/basetradetv/b/582140839?t=3h21m25s Lower level of play ("only" ~top50 GM Europe) but perfect illustration of the concept: http://www.twitch.tv/wardiii/b/584569248?t=3h01m30s Zerg has a massive advantage (like soO), Zerg can't finish off Terran with ultras (like soO), Zerg builds broods (unlike soO), Zerg wins (unlike soO). Too bad this link is broken or you would have witnessed the top1 TvZ since 2 years die to RagnaroK's "hardcore theorycraft" on cross Deadwing (i.e. the worst scenario distance-wise on the current map pool). None of the Zergs in the VODs above is even remotely close to soO skill-wise, yet inferior as they are they knew the solution when ultras/infests alone cannot break Terran for a reason or another. For what kind of reason would soO be unable to do the same... Why does TaeJa scan the Spire at 25' and 30'? Is he testing live my "hardcore theorycraft" or is he fearing an actual danger? I have no idea how you can pretend soO had no window to transition into broods. As soon as he had his first few ultras ready, he had the resources and time to prepare the brood transition (or remax) the vast majority of time. As for "soO can't tech broods because he's already max" - please... As if getting rid of 25-30 supply with a lings/banes raid, a fake engagement that disengages as soon as enough supply is freed up or simply the trick of building 15-20 evos before cancelling them to go beyond the limit was impossible. At 30 minutes soO has 170 supply and a 2k gas bank. Does he transition to broods? Nope, he still doesn't even have a Greater Spire... Proof that he didn't transition not because of objective constraints but because he wasn't interested at all in getting broods. No one can argue that he was 150 gas away from dying the whole game, so the fact he never morphed a Greater Spire just indicates that he didn't even embrace the possibility. His plan was to ram the front with ultras until someone collapses. He collapsed first. And yes those Hive armies are unbeatable when they appear. Have fun finding me a bio-based army that is immediately able to deal with 120+ supply of banes/infests/ultras + broods/queens (and whatever mutas are left) as soon as that deathball hits the field. Only an army that is already "mech" can handle this, and we both know how much time it takes to gather this. It's not like we had 9 months at the end of WoL to learn what happens when a brood push hits a Terran on biomech with a few emergency paper planes on the way, right... You note that Terrans are usually more aggressive than TaeJa when they play bio - why so in your opinion? Because they like to bulldoze on creep?? Blaming Nimbus for this masterpiece of strategic stubbornness is laughable... Seriously what is so hard about one time admitting that the balance might be favouring terran? You wrote a 50 pages whine post about what and how terrans are disadvantaged and somehow got it posted on tl.net. Now when things seem to turn around you are not man enough to admit even little imbalances towards the race that you play yourself but come up with this bullshit? You come with european gm player vods and wanna play teacher to the top1 zerg in the world. What would you have done if ppl did the same about innovation & flash and the likes in the period where terran race was a bit behind? Seriously, this shit is real. I am taking notice of what is happening here and without any emotions I have to come to the conclusion that I made already 1 year ago. It is absolutely not worth debating balance with guys that have nothing else in mind than doing everything they can to bring the race that they play themselves into an advantageous position and then rather die to defend this position instead of admitting that there might be some little thing not perfectly in balance. Sad story bro ... | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Spect8rCraft
649 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:28 r691175002 wrote: SoO wasn't just bum-rushing. With the exception of one engagement (high ground mines, game 3), he diffused nearly every single mine with one or two lings in every location that he was attacking from which is just mind-bending. I'd consider that level of micro to be equal or more demanding that terran splitting since it involves splitting near instantly at two or more locations simultaneously. I don't think making mines one-shot would achieve what you are hoping for. They would still discourage flanks to the same degree, and their strength in the initial engagement would be identical. It would just be a huge nerf to the parade push style. I also think it would cause problems defending certain all-ins where where the hold continues for several minutes against waves of reinforcements. A "surviving" mine is no more likely to get a money shot the second time than it is the first. I think right now the dynamic between mutaling and 4m is pretty much optimal from a spectator point of view. I cannot think of any simple change to those units that wouldn't have far too large of an impact in the matchup. I think that ZvT would be better balanced with changes to the early or late game instead. Something as simple as a spine crawler buff could easily snowball into a couple more drones in the midgame, which turns into just enough army supply to make a difference. As a spectator, I disagree. Not to the actual in-game events, mind you, just the perspective of it. The way I see it, minefields are very difficult to traverse. Engaging on top of one would be suicide--which is probably why soO smartly (but unfortunately) avoided assaulting the close fourth on Nimbus, since it was riddled with mines and turrets. If the Terran army gets on top of the Zerg one, the Zerg's priorities are diverted (are you going to clean up the mines or are you going to confront the bio-thor army eviscerating your banelings?); battles can last 40 seconds with enough stutter-step, reinforcements and whatnot, and if the Zerg has yet to clean up the mines, it effectively cuts off both reinforcement and retreat paths. 'Course, that's forward mines. Retreating mines are more difficult to diffuse since the Zerg will be walking into gunfire even before they activate. soO definitely wasn't engaging blindly; in fact, I'd say (without having seen everyone in the Ro16) he's done the most he could with the cards he was dealt. Still, that he couldn't press the issue because creep spread and mines at a base presents a bit of a problem when you consider that Terran has the strongest infrastructure once they get it humming. (Admittedly, the armor plating was a nice touch by Taeja.) A surviving mine's chance of hitting paydirt may be the same as its first shot, but a surviving mine is definitely more likely to recoup its cost even if it just hits another ling. 2 lings > 1 ling and 1 mine's cost < 2 mines' cost. If mines disappeared after one shot, it clears the field to allow Zerg to contest the space without fear of the ground exploding underneath them. And given that a good number of mines don't even get to detonate, not to mention how survivable expertly-split bio is, how much of a nerf to the parade push is it? As for all-ins, tanks can still be a solid choice against roach-ling-bane, and if it's truly an all-in, then tanks won't be as much a detriment in the long term since there shouldn't be a long term if Terran holds. | ||
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:53 keglu wrote: Im confused reading this topic lately. Constamt T>Z discussion when based on winrates it's matchup closest to balanced and on top on that was above 50% for Zerg in 7/8 of last months. At the same time P looks really bad in both matchups lately and no one is talking about that. Confusing. Let us fetch playa | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
Is this anyting you could agree on or not at all? Imo sc2 can hardly be balanced as the mechanisms of hard counters and terrible damage will always give more benefit than it should to one or the other side. And therefore this single game of taeja and soo is not of great importance for me when judging about balance. You cannot make assumptions that one player should have done this or that and implement it into the balance thing. Your counterpart could just have responded that taeja could have went mass raven & some vikings and would have resolved it and you would be both completely lost in theory and wishful thinking. When judging about balance, it is commonly agreed on that the highest level of play and the results that are being created there are decisive. In this sense I think that zergs are in fact right now in a little depressing situation with all the all-ins and semi all-ins that are being played (and figured out by terrans) and the general muta/bling vs bio meta is a bit in favour of terran, which is causing zergs to try and find other ways in order to create better chances on winning a match than with standard play. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:50 TheDwf wrote: By all means PM the few pros that sometimes post on TL - MorroW, Bunny, Snute, TLO, CatZ... - and ask them what they thought about the Nimbus game between TaeJa and soO and if the commonly played Zerg idea (Zerg, not mine) of a brood transition when ultras can't finish the job alone was unplayable there. Right, because soO needs to take advice from Morrow, Bunny, Snute, TLO, and CatZ. You forget that this guy is a 4x consecutive GSL finalist. Easily the best Zerg on earth. And he's currently sitting at 53% vs T since the patch. Meanwhile, in Terran la-la-land: Innovation: 71% Taeja: 65% MMA: 62% But okay, TvZ is fine. That idiot soO just needs to go Brood Lords and everything will be okay. | ||
|
Samx
Singapore149 Posts
On November 04 2014 04:53 keglu wrote: Im confused reading this topic lately. Constamt T>Z discussion when based on winrates it's matchup closest to balanced and on top on that was above 50% for Zerg in 7/8 of last months. At the same time P looks really bad in both matchups lately and no one is talking about that. Confusing. The Protoss players will always figure something out. They always have, unlike terran players. From 3 gate robo, FFE, gateway expand, stargate pheonix etc for pvz. All have been considered standard meta for Protoss at one point or another. Likewise for pvt. Chargelot archon, blink into collosus, Templar openning. Protoss have always adapted. | ||
| ||
