EPTSeriously the whole "so much bias omg dinomight is so biased" thing is getting really old. I made a statement and backed it up with what I think is sound logic. Why don't you provide a counter argument or an example that disproves what I said?
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1230
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
Seriously the whole "so much bias omg dinomight is so biased" thing is getting really old. I made a statement and backed it up with what I think is sound logic. Why don't you provide a counter argument or an example that disproves what I said? | ||
|
91matt
United Kingdom147 Posts
On December 16 2015 01:34 DinoMight wrote: Seriously the whole "so much bias omg dinomight is so biased" thing is getting really old. I made a statement and backed it up with what I think is sound logic. Why don't you provide a counter argument or an example that disproves what I said? You're honestly suggesting that you killed 16 workers with 2 adepts and then failed a 2 base all in, and the reason it didn't work was because of the economy? Ever considered the fact you're just doing things wrong? | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
He may be biased, but the economy does favor zergs big time, specially because the building that gives the economy gives them army so while a T/P has to chose either economy or production, a zerg gets both every time they expand. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On December 16 2015 01:39 91matt wrote: You're honestly suggesting that you killed 16 workers with 2 adepts and then failed a 2 base all in, and the reason it didn't work was because of the economy? Ever considered the fact you're just doing things wrong? I'm suggesting that I killed 16 workers with 2 adepts all while doing a very economical opening and the Zerg was still even on economy. As the guy above me said, when you reduce mineral income (lower worker production rate) you favor the race with less infrastructure spending (Zerg). Every time Protoss takes a base it needs more gateways, more pylons, etc. When Zerg takes a new base it automatically gets more production. In an environment where each base has less minerals, that favors the Zerg (pretty obviously). Also, when you consider worker production rate, Protoss has a significantly slower rate of producing workers than it did in HotS compared to Zerg. These aren't "biases" these are facts. Besides, everyone is biased one way or another. But not everyone provides sound logic to back up their arguments. If we're going simply based on "you play X race therefore your argument is invalid" then we should only listen to Random players. | ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
 for example when playing ling/bane style ZvT it's damn hard to keep up with production in terran if they macro properly and you have a problem untill you have ultras out ~ you're usually 20-30 supply behind as opposed to Hots where you'd easily be more dominant in the mid gameZvP it's less of a thing because lurkers are such good units ~ | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On December 16 2015 02:11 Liquid`Ret wrote: you guys dont take into account that 3 larva isnt that much from inject for example when playing ling/bane style ZvT it's damn hard to keep up with production in terran if they macro properly and you have a problem untill you have ultras out ~ you're usually 20-30 supply behind as opposed to Hots where you'd easily be more dominant in the mid gameZvP it's less of a thing because lurkers are such good units ~ Ret, consider ZvP for a moment where you go 3 hatch before pool. From the start of the game until your first 3 injects pop you're producing workers at the same rate as in HotS. After your first 3 injects you've got 6 larva per base instead of 7. Now look at the Protoss. Chrono has been nerfed significantly from 50% boost to 15%. Sure, the chrono is always on, but that back ends your Probe production. So your buildings are delayed, your expansions are delayed, etc. The larva change in a 3 hatch build is very small when you consider how many of your drones are produced before the first injects pop. Compare that to how many workers Protoss can make in the same time. This is why I've been saying that the economy and macro mechanics changes favor Zerg vs P. | ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
[QUOTE]On December 16 2015 01:29 91matt wrote: [QUOTE]On December 16 2015 01:22 DinoMight wrote: [QUOTE]On December 16 2015 01:12 tamino wrote: Dont you think some specific units (lurkers, ravagers, ultra) are not the only problem with lotv zerg ? I mean the entire dynamic of the game, the new economy, seems to me to favor zergs so much. I say that with some care, I'm only diamond, but even when I see pro players harassing zerg like crazy, something I couldn't do with half the result they get, they still get crushed later by pure army size. [/QUOTE] I absolutely think the economy favors Zerg. Consider 3 hatch before pool. With the 12 worker start this build is much safer than HotS and still produces workers at the same time. Now consider Protoss and the change to Chrono boost where you get more chrono but over a long period of time. The rate at which workers is produced in the early game is significantly reduced relative to HotS. So just off the bat, Zerg has an economic advantage moving from HotS to LotV. I saw this in a game yesterday where I opened with 2 adepts and killed 16 workers and somehow as I moved out with my 2 base push the Zerg had equalized the worker count and had an army 3x as big as mine.[/QUOTE] so much bias[/QUOTE] He may be biased, but the economy does favor zergs big time, specially because the building that gives the economy gives them army so while a T/P has to chose either economy or production, a zerg gets both every time they expand.[/QUOTE This is a common, minor misconception - that Zerg's centralised production resource, coming from the primary base structure, allows Zerg to have both increased economy and increased military production when built in high numbers. It allows them to have increased capacity for the production of additional Drones or units, and thus Zerg has to carefully allocate this resource (larvae) or risk either dying to a push or falling economically behind if the units he made failed to do any damage. This is unlike Protoss or Terran, whose only limiting resources are minerals and gas. Thus, when Zerg builds Hatcheries, it builds something like Barracks, Factories, CCs, etc all in one, except he cannot produce units and workers separately. This means that he still has to choose between economy and production. Sorry for nitpicking  EDIT: Am on mobile and drunk so forgive me for shitty quotes | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 16 2015 02:16 DinoMight wrote: Ret, consider ZvP for a moment where you go 3 hatch before pool. From the start of the game until your first 3 injects pop you're producing workers at the same rate as in HotS. After your first 3 injects you've got 6 larva per base instead of 7. Now look at the Protoss. Chrono has been nerfed significantly from 50% boost to 15%. Sure, the chrono is always on, but that back ends your Probe production. So your buildings are delayed, your expansions are delayed, etc. The larva change in a 3 hatch build is very small when you consider how many of your drones are produced before the first injects pop. Compare that to how many workers Protoss can make in the same time. This is why I've been saying that the economy and macro mechanics changes favor Zerg vs P. Dunno what the end result is if you take everything into consideration, but you are arguing about small changes that compete with build orders and the metagame for relevance. When you end up with a much faster third because of actual gameplay interactions like adepts and pylon canons or whatever the fact that you produced 3 less probes earlier can be very neglectable. I don't know what the best measure is to say the economy is no problem, but so far in tournament games I haven't seen worker discrepancies out of the ordinary in ZvP. Maybe I also haven't been looking properly, maybe it's also a build order question and maybe completely different in the future. Point is, I don't think that the economic development in the early game is a big problem in ZvP or has significantly changed in relation to each other at all. Afterwards when the bases start running out that is of course a different question which I have no clue how blizzard wants to tackle other than either nerfing zerglings into the ground or going to "free-5-base"-map designs ala Deadwing. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On December 16 2015 02:52 Big J wrote: Dunno what the end result is if you take everything into consideration, but you are arguing about small changes that compete with build orders and the metagame for relevance. When you end up with a much faster third because of actual gameplay interactions like adepts and pylon canons or whatever the fact that you produced 3 less probes earlier can be very neglectable. I don't know what the best measure is to say the economy is no problem, but so far in tournament games I haven't seen worker discrepancies out of the ordinary in ZvP. Maybe I also haven't been looking properly, maybe it's also a build order question and maybe completely different in the future. Point is, I don't think that the economic development in the early game is a big problem in ZvP or has significantly changed in relation to each other at all. Afterwards when the bases start running out that is of course a different question which I have no clue how blizzard wants to tackle other than either nerfing zerglings into the ground or going to "free-5-base"-map designs ala Deadwing. Well we can make little observations to define little percentages of the variance. So compared to HotS, PvZ in LotV is totally broken in favor of Z. What has changed? Well, the economy changes explain some of the variance. The strength of the Lurker explains some. The Colossus nerf making Zerglings God units... explains a bit more. | ||
|
cop354g
61 Posts
| ||
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
More and more I am seeing Protoss abusing their plethora of early to mid game options vs Terran. I am struggling heavily against any combination of MSC, pylon overcharges, Oracles and Adepts early game. You'd think this would be a large investment but Protoss is still easily able to expand behind these pressure builds and easily defend counter attacks with Pylons. I'm not saying the matchup is totally imbalanced, but the meta is going in a bad direction. I think the main problem is that Protoss has too many units where you make one of them and they have a huge impact. One MSC, one Oracle, one Warp Prism can do more than any one singular Terran unit. The Cyclone is a huge investment early on but feels increasingly like the only way to stay safe vs Toss. Personally I think it's time to nerf, revamp or remove the Oracle's attack and make the unit about scouting and revelation in the mid to late game. It was bad design in HotS but more manageable. Now with the Adept and the new econ I feel the Oracle adds too much bullshit/free win into the game. Its extremely easy to open Adept MSC and Oracle while still getting a similar expansion timing to Terran. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On December 16 2015 03:45 coolman123123 wrote: Protoss has too many early game options . More and more I am seeing Protoss abusing their plethora of early to mid game options vs Terran. I am struggling heavily against any combination of MSC, pylon overcharges, Oracles and Adepts early game. You'd think this would be a large investment but Protoss is still easily able to expand behind these pressure builds and easily defend counter attacks with Pylons. I'm not saying the matchup is totally imbalanced, but the meta is going in a bad direction. I think the main problem is that Protoss has too many units where you make one of them and they have a huge impact. One MSC, one Oracle, one Warp Prism can do more than any one singular Terran unit. The Cyclone is a huge investment early on but feels increasingly like the only way to stay safe vs Toss. Personally I think it's time to nerf, revamp or remove the Oracle's attack and make the unit about scouting and revelation in the mid to late game. It was bad design in HotS but more manageable. Now with the Adept and the new econ I feel the Oracle adds too much bullshit/free win into the game. Its extremely easy to open Adept MSC and Oracle while still getting a similar expansion timing to Terran. I think a cheaper Cyclone could be good for the game. Edit - make it cost a little bit less gas so Terrans can get one more easily without sacrificing their other gas units/upgrades or having to build another refinery earlier. | ||
|
Xequecal
United States473 Posts
On December 16 2015 03:45 coolman123123 wrote: Protoss has too many early game options . More and more I am seeing Protoss abusing their plethora of early to mid game options vs Terran. I am struggling heavily against any combination of MSC, pylon overcharges, Oracles and Adepts early game. You'd think this would be a large investment but Protoss is still easily able to expand behind these pressure builds and easily defend counter attacks with Pylons. I'm not saying the matchup is totally imbalanced, but the meta is going in a bad direction. I think the main problem is that Protoss has too many units where you make one of them and they have a huge impact. One MSC, one Oracle, one Warp Prism can do more than any one singular Terran unit. The Cyclone is a huge investment early on but feels increasingly like the only way to stay safe vs Toss. Personally I think it's time to nerf, revamp or remove the Oracle's attack and make the unit about scouting and revelation in the mid to late game. It was bad design in HotS but more manageable. Now with the Adept and the new econ I feel the Oracle adds too much bullshit/free win into the game. Its extremely easy to open Adept MSC and Oracle while still getting a similar expansion timing to Terran. The oracle is pretty superfluous vs. Terran. It's worse than an adept drop in literally every way and also gets countered by the cyclone. I have no idea why any Protoss would do this, especially when fast oracle is countered by building 2 turrets but adept drop isn't. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On December 16 2015 03:50 DinoMight wrote: I think a cheaper Cyclone could be good for the game. Edit - make it cost a little bit less gas so Terrans can get one more easily without sacrificing their other gas units/upgrades or having to build another refinery earlier. Yeah, maybe a cheaper Cyclone would be good, but I don't think it changes the uselessness of the factory vs. Protoss. Widow Mines were nice, until disruptors became a thing. The match-up is weird right now. Protoss has a strong advantage in the early and the early mid-game. It's basically up to the Terran to defend until medivacs and stim. Then you can harass, but you cannot engage the army until you have several liberators. It's at this point where the matchup--imo--is too volatile. When Liberators had range, Terrans could stalemate a Protoss playing disruptors. But now that range has been buried to the point where pros don't even bother with it, we had a bad scenario. Terran can't properly defend a Liberator in defender mode. Some nova balls come in, Terran *has* to run away, Stalkers blink in, focus down Liberators, and Terran has to completely disengage. In short, because the Liberators can't move while in defender mode, have such huge flanks, get utterly rekt by Blink Stalkers, this makes Disruptor play extremely strong--virtually unbreakable by a Terran, Since you constantly have to dodge the shots, and you can't siege your liberators or you'll lose them, what are you supposed to do? It really feels like this interplay is broken. Terran's need the burst-damage of the Liberators to compete with Toss ground armies, but incidentally, Disruptors counter both the barracks and the Liberator. I'm not saying it's unwinnable, rather, it really requires the Protoss the make a couple of big mistakes. In the beta Toss players were still unsure with how to use the disruptor. Terrans had reasonable access to range on Liberators. Terrans seemingly had the advantage in the mid-game (then lost it again in the late game, versus carrier transitions). But then Toss players figured out the power of point-and-click-instant-death (mass disruptors), and the Liberator got hard-nerfed. Closing Thoughts I'm in the camp that think the disruptor needs to change slightly. But, I also think it's possible that Terrans just haven't figured out how to play against it. I'm inclined to think that widow mines could be a solution, but not while the disruptor can still hit burrowed units. I don't think disruptors should be able to hit burrowed units, but I understand that this is needed versus the extremely strong lurker. So ... what? I don't know. There are more weird issues with the match-up, right now. But currently, the disruptor feels problematic. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2015 04:43 TimeSpiral wrote: Yeah, maybe a cheaper Cyclone would be good, but I don't think it changes the uselessness of the factory vs. Protoss. Widow Mines were nice, until disruptors became a thing. The match-up is weird right now. Protoss has a strong advantage in the early and the early mid-game. It's basically up to the Terran to defend until medivacs and stim. Then you can harass, but you cannot engage the army until you have several liberators. It's at this point where the matchup--imo--is too volatile. When Liberators had range, Terrans could stalemate a Protoss playing disruptors. But now that range has been buried to the point where pros don't even bother with it, we had a bad scenario. Terran can't properly defend a Liberator in defender mode. Some nova balls come in, Terran *has* to run away, Stalkers blink in, focus down Liberators, and Terran has to completely disengage. In short, because the Liberators can't move while in defender mode, have such huge flanks, get utterly rekt by Blink Stalkers, this makes Disruptor play extremely strong--virtually unbreakable by a Terran, Since you constantly have to dodge the shots, and you can't siege your liberators or you'll lose them, what are you supposed to do? It really feels like this interplay is broken. Terran's need the burst-damage of the Liberators to compete with Toss ground armies, but incidentally, Disruptors counter both the barracks and the Liberator. I'm not saying it's unwinnable, rather, it really requires the Protoss the make a couple of big mistakes. In the beta Toss players were still unsure with how to use the disruptor. Terrans had reasonable access to range on Liberators. Terrans seemingly had the advantage in the mid-game (then lost it again in the late game, versus carrier transitions). But then Toss players figured out the power of point-and-click-instant-death (mass disruptors), and the Liberator got hard-nerfed. Closing Thoughts I'm in the camp that think the disruptor needs to change slightly. But, I also think it's possible that Terrans just haven't figured out how to play against it. I'm inclined to think that widow mines could be a solution, but not while the disruptor can still hit burrowed units. I don't think disruptors should be able to hit burrowed units, but I understand that this is needed versus the extremely strong lurker. So ... what? I don't know. There are more weird issues with the match-up, right now. But currently, the disruptor feels problematic. Sounds like Disrupter needs a slight damage nerf while having a +bio bonus to maintain it's need versus lurkers. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
I think a PO nerf will make this matchup MUCH easier for Terran. Because Protoss will be infinitely more vulnerable to harass at the beginning of the game. I think eventually Disruptors will be really bad. Good players dodge them so well as it is. | ||
|
cop354g
61 Posts
On December 16 2015 05:07 DinoMight wrote: How's the Ghost's ability against Disruptors? Couldn't you Snipe a disruptor after it fires? I think Purification Nova takes long enough to detonate. I think a PO nerf will make this matchup MUCH easier for Terran. Because Protoss will be infinitely more vulnerable to harass at the beginning of the game. I think eventually Disruptors will be really bad. Good players dodge them so well as it is. Dont forget how disruptor makes mech really hard. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On December 16 2015 05:07 DinoMight wrote: How's the Ghost's ability against Disruptors? Couldn't you Snipe a disruptor after it fires? I think Purification Nova takes long enough to detonate. I think a PO nerf will make this matchup MUCH easier for Terran. Because Protoss will be infinitely more vulnerable to harass at the beginning of the game. I think eventually Disruptors will be really bad. Good players dodge them so well as it is. Snipe only affects biological units. Imo when disrupter numbers reach a certain point where it doesn't matter how well your micro is. You can never engage the protoss army or win a head on engagement unless protoss messes up. | ||
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
On December 16 2015 05:08 cop354g wrote: Dont forget how disruptor makes mech really hard. More less impossible to play mech because everything except a thor is 1 shot | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On December 16 2015 05:19 PinoKotsBeer wrote: More less impossible to play mech because everything except a thor is 1 shot They don't one shot tanks. I think a tank is left with 15 hp after being hit by a disruptor. | ||
| ||
