EPTa) tournament season to begin in Korea,
b) David Kim nerfing and buffing random things that he hopes don't matter but might end up being the next queen+fungal combo.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1252
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
a) tournament season to begin in Korea, b) David Kim nerfing and buffing random things that he hopes don't matter but might end up being the next queen+fungal combo. | ||
|
Merkmerk
United States96 Posts
On January 06 2016 05:18 keglu wrote: Becasue op usually means winning 55-60% of games and not 100% Also TvZ seems fine, PvZ is problematic. Oh tvz is fine now? What happened to the whining about ultra lisks and ravagers ? Terran l2play and now that isn't the narrative anymore now that they can just abuse liberators for easy wins haha User was warned for this post | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
| ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
On January 06 2016 10:04 Merkmerk wrote: Oh tvz is fine now? What happened to the whining about ultra lisks and ravagers ? Terran l2play and now that isn't the narrative anymore now that they can just abuse liberators for easy wins haha Easy wins as Terran in TvZ? Hahahahahahaha | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 06 2016 10:03 Ghanburighan wrote: And now the sample size is too small, Dinomight? Look, face it. We don't have enough information, and this leads to the discussion going around in circles. We just need to wait for two things: a) tournament season to begin in Korea, b) David Kim nerfing and buffing random things that he hopes don't matter but might end up being the next queen+fungal combo. I think it's time to update, especially due to PvZ. 2 months after release this game is still operating on the last beta patch. I don't see why we should treat it fundamentally differently just because someone put a "released" stamp on it. We didnt need stats nor a Korean metagame to conclude some rotten interactions a few months ago and I think it would be for the best of the game if blizzard got back to work. But I think the reality will be that we will see like 2-3 meaningful changes this year (we are probably gearing up for one in the coming weeks) and a few timing and number adjustments to make for balanced winrates, regardless of how gameplay looks then. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On January 06 2016 11:14 Big J wrote: I think it's time to update, especially due to PvZ. 2 months after release this game is still operating on the last beta patch. I don't see why we should treat it fundamentally differently just because someone put a "released" stamp on it. We didnt need stats nor a Korean metagame to conclude some rotten interactions a few months ago and I think it would be for the best of the game if blizzard got back to work. But I think the reality will be that we will see like 2-3 meaningful changes this year (we are probably gearing up for one in the coming weeks) and a few timing and number adjustments to make for balanced winrates, regardless of how gameplay looks then. I think we agree on what will happen, but not on when what won't happen should happen. I actually don't know whether rotten interactions exist or not, because you do need a meta to understand this (also, I need to find some good games to watch). In HotS, mass tempest versus terran was an absolute pain to deal with but I only remember one game by either sOs or Rain where that actually happened in a televised match. That's because it was nearly impossible to get to that point in the game without dying. It was also common to say that tempests were hardcountered by PDD but I don't think we ever saw that either as getting ravens out as terran was just too difficult (beyond the 111 era). Another example, remember what PvZ looked like before the Stephano revolution (I'll call it that, but there were many more people that did the inventing)? Well, it was terrible, and it didn't really need nerfs and buffs to change it, it required a slightly altered way of playing the game. While this is not always the case (and it's even more difficult to see whether it was the case or not because nerfs and buffs did occur in that timeframe), it should illustrate the point that the game has a natural evolution process that requires time. And if we believe that Blizzard will continue to radically change gameplay years from now, I think we should give the players enough time. | ||
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
On January 06 2016 10:04 Merkmerk wrote: Oh tvz is fine now? What happened to the whining about ultra lisks and ravagers ? Terran l2play and now that isn't the narrative anymore now that they can just abuse liberators for easy wins haha User was warned for this post In my opinion is fine, there are for sure people with different opinions. Also most games i watch never go to ultralisk phase so hard to make opinion on them. Right now since like you whining about liberators in TvZ. Is TvZ terran favoured then? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 06 2016 11:30 Ghanburighan wrote: I think we agree on what will happen, but not on when what won't happen should happen. I actually don't know whether rotten interactions exist or not, because you do need a meta to understand this (also, I need to find some good games to watch). In HotS, mass tempest versus terran was an absolute pain to deal with but I only remember one game by either sOs or Rain where that actually happened in a televised match. That's because it was nearly impossible to get to that point in the game without dying. It was also common to say that tempests were hardcountered by PDD but I don't think we ever saw that either as getting ravens out as terran was just too difficult (beyond the 111 era). Another example, remember what PvZ looked like before the Stephano revolution (I'll call it that, but there were many more people that did the inventing)? Well, it was terrible, and it didn't really need nerfs and buffs to change it, it required a slightly altered way of playing the game. While this is not always the case (and it's even more difficult to see whether it was the case or not because nerfs and buffs did occur in that timeframe), it should illustrate the point that the game has a natural evolution process that requires time. And if we believe that Blizzard will continue to radically change gameplay years from now, I think we should give the players enough time. So for one I do believe we have enough data to conclude that PvZ needs action to be taken. We have seen Protoss getting destroyed by Zerg for most of the beta and now that the game is released we actually have the numbers from aligulac which look quite bad. Even the combined Korean data from various GSL/SSL qualifiers are probably statistically relevant with their ~45% average. I'm aware of the Korean GM numbers in Protoss favor and that Protoss might need to be looked at too if macro games become fair, yet the big book of bullshit stays viable, but for the moment I think Protoss is quite a bit more on the receiving end (at least of the type of games I care about  ).Whether there is a future gameplan/strategy to play the matchup in a more fair manner is something I don't really see mattering too much at the moment for various reasons. First and foremost the game is hurting a lot from imbalances, even if they are only temporary. Players play the game right now and they want a fair chance right now. Then there is a plain issue with diversity and player's perception "how the game should be playable". I do think there is a problem in the game if too many "obvious reactions" turn out to be not so good. (e.g. say making voidrays is inherently bad for whatever reasons when the opponent has invested into roaches) It's what kills the fun for many players when the design of the game fails to deliver the solutions that were originally planed. This is obviously a very delicate matter because it relies a lot on perceptions of what is "wrong" and "right", but I believe this is one of the issues sitting at the core of the reasons why the game can be very frustrating even for experienced players and why the game balance often feels very unstable, as there is often just no inherent alternative when some style gets figured out and stops working 50% of the time. As a last point in favor of patching I want to add that for a patch to "go wrong" in terms of winrates it would have to produce a swing of 10% and more in favor of Protoss. I can't recall any patch that went that horribly wrong. A little unconnected to the PvZ problem I want to come back to what I called "rotten interactions". I believe that the game is not going to be "the best starcraft it can be", i.e. what blizzard and I think everybody wants to have, for as long as we make do with "having that one way to play a matchup". We have seen that pattern a few times now in WoL and HotS: Players complain about imbalance, because most of what they do doesn't work. Then they step it up, they learn a very narrow way to play and then the game gets called stale because after a few months everybody is doing the absolutely same thing over and over again. To your examples: The mass Tempests were 2013 sOs vs INnoVation WCS Season 1 finals. And I think there are other cases of Skytoss, in particular on that huge, huge blizzard map, *something* Fortress or so. I personally found that quite exciting, but I have never played bio vs tempests myself and Mech vs Tempest or Protoss in general was a very boring style in HotS unless they had absolutely no clue how to defend mines/hellions. Not sure where you are getting at with the Stephano example. Before Stephano ZvP was probably in Zerg's favor a little bit already, mid 2011 till end 2011, but 2-base Protoss with allins or late thirds was still having quite some success. The 2012 roach max was an impressive case of how figured out Protoss 2-base aggression was and how little was going on when both sides played macro, but it was a rather short phase in which this attack was effective and the "real maxout attack" never fully caught on in Korea to begin with. And I think we can both agree that WoL ZvP was a stupid matchup regardless of balance and at least in retrospect I personally think it should have been aggressively patched to get rid of midgame warpgate/forcefield and lategame (BL/)Infestor plays and give more options besides passive FFE vs 3 hatch openings every game. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
You make a good point regarding a single way to play. I think this has ham-stringed SC2 too many times in several different MUs. And the game is generally best when there are several ways that the game can go. For example, the beauty of TvZ was widely seen as due to the beauty of bling-muta vs marine micro, but the MU was also incredibly diverse, with both players having a large number of openings, mid-game plans and end-game compositions to choose from (while TvT in WoL was even more diverse in the early game, it was less so in terms of late game compositions). What changed with the fungal era is that Z had one nearly foolproof game plan, so games came down to a) did the T all-in work, b) did his initial hellions do damage, or c) did the Z keep up with drops. I think we can bring up similar points of MUs benefiting from diversity and deteriorating with dominant strategies emerging (TvT being a very diverse MU for long periods of SC2, ZvZ being bling wars into roach balls (+mutasurprise!)). But I'll leave it to everyone to find their favourite example and period for illustration. As you see, I think we agree on this part, so if you look back at your comments regarding the "Stephano revolution", you'll see that I wasn't talking about balance at all, nor the max build, but rather the revolution in the way that the MU was played. I don't even think it was a particularly good revolution in terms of the end result, but I thought there were more rotten interactions in PvZ before than after. | ||
|
Xequecal
United States473 Posts
| ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On January 07 2016 03:48 Xequecal wrote: My suggestion would be that instead of changing Adepts to armored, instead change the upgrade into one that lets Adepts shoot up. You just simultaneously solved the Mutalisk problem and the "OP vs Terran" problem. That could be a huge problem against zerg. | ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
My way-too idealistic suggestion that will never become true because it would require a complete rebalance of the game, is to create a Rock-paper-scissors dyamic (thought more soft than hard counter) for the early game (a.k.a, Hatchary tech for Zergs, Cycbercore tech for Protoss, and at most non-tech lab factory for Terran). With the amount of units the races have now, it is more than possible to achieve this. For example: Zergling, Roach, Hydra & Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, & Marine, Marauder, Hellbat?/Reaper?. If designed properly with the correct balance, this is to make sure that all units have at least one weakness. This weakness can be exploited by your opponent, and thus forcing you to mix up your units a little. And at the same time, these units should be able to 'prevent' a player from losing a game because with mix & matching plus some support (a.k.a, like Queens & MSC), they should provide the necessary tools to prevent from dying form any form of agression. (NOTE: I'm saying prevent. Not counter. Read this to understand more what I mean: http://www.oxeyegames.com/rts-game-play-part-3-build-options/) With this being a very stable foundations for races, the higher teir units design should then focus on adding gameplay options and new possible ventures for tactics for the players. Units like the Void Ray, Colossus, Nydus Worm & Swarm Host would have to be 'changed' because they either don't have interesting gameplay or have designs that prompt problematic interaction or don't. Design, and how it interactives in real games is important to consider (not just how cool it looks or just to make it usable). Expand on what makes a unit useful instead of just, able to kill this better. As the game enters its 10 minute mark, the game would develop into each race having three main stragties (Zerg: Melee, Range, Air & Protoss: Templar, Robo, Air & Terran: Barrack, Factory, Air) with each race having core units that can interchange between the stragties. The cores units would be: for Terran would be all Reactor Base units, while the Protoss would be its Gateway units, and the Zergs being basically any unit. Super late game would have to make sure no combination of units cannot be beaten against any other combination. Though, as I say all of this, I imagine this with Marco Boosters being in a weaker state, and some race specific mechanic such agressive warp-in, being nerfed heavily so it doesn't skewe the balance too much. But as I said, that's my idealistic vision of the game, and it will never happen. I'll just go back to my mod and tweak it as close as possible to my vision. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1382 Posts
On January 06 2016 19:36 keglu wrote: In my opinion is fine, there are for sure people with different opinions. Also most games i watch never go to ultralisk phase so hard to make opinion on them. Right now since like you whining about liberators in TvZ. Is TvZ terran favoured then? Stop arguing with merkmerk. He is plat zerg venting his ladder frustration on forums while disregarding any opinion that he doesnt deem right under any circumstances. Ive tried arguing with him but he would never budge from his position. Its useless. When you point out flaw in his play or logic he starts pointing to winrates kr "how does this pro player have 70% in tvz matchup" or something idiotic like that | ||
|
A_needle_jog
Korea (South)699 Posts
 It is only fun talk and balance dicussion. Let's hope we get new maps soon so we all better friends in the future | ||
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
| ||
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
Seems like ling/bling/muta is still very popular in Korea while in Europe i see mostly roach/ravanger builds. Which playstyle do you think is better? | ||
|
GreenHealing
82 Posts
| ||
|
g2s
22 Posts
Scouting prelair is still that hero overlord who sees a reactored factory and a starport. In WoL that could mean: marine, hellion, medivacs. In LOTV it could be that or a hellbat push or widow mines and how about a liberator instead of that medivac? Also on some maps just bringing a liberator behind a mineral line in a good position is too easy for the guaranteed damage / delaying of mining. Main problem: Larvanerf makes going mutalingbling much harder by punishing poor mechanics while going roach/ravager lets terran decide the pace for the rest of the game. | ||
|
LoneYoShi
France1348 Posts
On January 13 2016 01:35 g2s wrote: ZvT problems: Scouting prelair is still that hero overlord who sees a reactored factory and a starport. In WoL that could mean: marine, hellion, medivacs. In LOTV it could be that or a hellbat push or widow mines and how about a liberator instead of that medivac? Also on some maps just bringing a liberator behind a mineral line in a good position is too easy for the guaranteed damage / delaying of mining. Main problem: Larvanerf makes going mutalingbling much harder by punishing poor mechanics while going roach/ravager lets terran decide the pace for the rest of the game. You make a good point about overlord scouting. However, all the other races scout using other cues that just plainly seeing what the other player is doing. At least I know terrans do (I actually have no clue if Protoss players feel the need to scout early on or not). Try to see his geysers and see how much gas he mined, learn the timings of buildings/production more precisely, etc. I'm not saying any of this is easy, but there are ways. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On January 13 2016 01:08 GreenHealing wrote: Why people dont mathematically analyze the game to determine imbalance? There is no such thing as "consensus" in things like that. And how would you do that? This aint hollywood. Science doesnt work that way. | ||
| ||
