|
On March 03 2016 08:46 PPN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 02:28 CheddarToss wrote:According to aligulac PvT is at 47% while PvZ is at 42.7%. The data is for February. Protoss has been far to weak in PvZ since October. I think that it's high time for some buffs to Protoss or nerfs to Zerg. 5 months is enough time to establish that Zerg is overpowered in in PvZ. Wow. Breaking news. After 2 heavy nerfs, Protoss is doing even worse than before. Who would have thought. Here I was like everyone else thinking Protoss winrate would naturally go up thanks to rocks and a natural becoming a gold.
In all fairness, their balance report is not meant to indicate "balance." The winrates not only include the top Koreans and Foreigners, but it also includes players who play at the 1200 level...which is still higher than most people here, but not really at the highest level of play.
And second, the -/+ points just means that a person from a race performed above or below the "expected" level of play, which is quite variable and changes regularly. Like Innovation (before his string of losses) underperforming versus Zerg. So this means that a 1400 player like Drunkenboi winning versus HuK, an 1800 rated player would shift the rating, and we don't base balance off of those players.
So, we're in a weird situation where the top players are somewhat even (look at Code S where we have 1 Zerg currently in the RO 16, 4 Protoss, and 5 Terran), but at the high foreigner level, which is admittedly not that far below the Code A Korean players, we are seeing fairly high rates of Zergs and Terrans beating equally skilled Protosses. Look at Ting, where there's currently 1 Protoss in the RO16.
|
Gsl code s seeds are before protoss nerfs.and stil, mostly zergs got eliminated by terrains. Look ssl stats they were 90% after the nerfs, pvz is 30%
Don't be blind, there are lots of proof since beta that pvz is strongly z favored
|
On March 03 2016 09:32 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 08:46 PPN wrote:On March 03 2016 02:28 CheddarToss wrote:According to aligulac PvT is at 47% while PvZ is at 42.7%. The data is for February. Protoss has been far to weak in PvZ since October. I think that it's high time for some buffs to Protoss or nerfs to Zerg. 5 months is enough time to establish that Zerg is overpowered in in PvZ. Wow. Breaking news. After 2 heavy nerfs, Protoss is doing even worse than before. Who would have thought. Here I was like everyone else thinking Protoss winrate would naturally go up thanks to rocks and a natural becoming a gold. In all fairness, their balance report is not meant to indicate "balance." The winrates not only include the top Koreans and Foreigners, but it also includes players who play at the 1200 level...which is still higher than most people here, but not really at the highest level of play. And second, the -/+ points just means that a person from a race performed above or below the "expected" level of play, which is quite variable and changes regularly. Like Innovation (before his string of losses) underperforming versus Zerg. So this means that a 1400 player like Drunkenboi winning versus HuK, an 1800 rated player would shift the rating, and we don't base balance off of those players. So, we're in a weird situation where the top players are somewhat even (look at Code S where we have 1 Zerg currently in the RO 16, 4 Protoss, and 5 Terran), but at the high foreigner level, which is admittedly not that far below the Code A Korean players, we are seeing fairly high rates of Zergs and Terrans beating equally skilled Protosses. Look at Ting, where there's currently 1 Protoss in the RO16.
Racial distribution in tournament can be misleading to judge balance due to the initial brackets distribution. As said by Icekin, there is some luck and matchup that can give off the wrong impressions. A lot of Zergs have been eliminated by Terrans in premier tournaments. If you look at the stats in GSL and SSL, there are hints and circumstancial evidence that something funny is going on in PvZ (102–135 (43.04%) and 32–38 (45.71%) respectively, which is not too far off from what Aligulac says when including foreigners and some top amateurs). I am not a game designer so I can hardly tell what exactly is wrong but something is definitely wrong for sure..
Frankly I'm not a good player, and lately I am actually managing pretty well in PvZ on ladder because I like to play against the current meta and do unexpected stuff. I was lucky to be in beta kinda early and I still enjoy the game a lot even now -my inner Broodwar fanboy is very happy that SC2 feels somewhat slightly closer to BW since Lotv- but only people in denial cannot see that PvZ is not fair. It has been the case for the past 10 month on Lotv. It's fine but it is pretty perplexing to see so little reaction from Blizzard.
|
Note: I originally posted this on /r/starcraft/ but the downvote brigades are up and about (almost any post not related to esports and not made by a notable community member gets mass downvoted on that sub).
I noticed that most of the game-ending harassment units in LotV deal bonus damage against Light units, and that all workers have the Light tag. I spent a few hours testing and doing math and came up with this suggestion:
Remove the Light tag from worker units.
1. SCV - Biological, Light, Mechanical
1. Drone - Biological, Light
1. Probe - Light, Mechanical
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/32CwSFC.png)
This change dramatically improves worker survivability without changing army vs. army battles. Game-ending harassment is nerfed without being completely useless.
Unfortunately, this change does nothing against problematic harassment units that don't deal bonus damage vs. light units (Mutalisks, Banshees, Liberators, etc.). It also does nothing to fix Protoss's weak core units and other design issues within the game. On the other hand, because Protoss harassment is no longer game-ending, their core units can be buffed to compensate.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the right direction. No single change will bring about a better Starcraft 2. A combination of good changes is necessary.
What do you think?
|
On April 23 2016 02:47 Eternal Dalek wrote:Note: I originally posted this on /r/starcraft/ but the downvote brigades are up and about (almost any post not related to esports and not made by a notable community member gets mass downvoted on that sub).I noticed that most of the game-ending harassment units in LotV deal bonus damage against Light units, and that all workers have the Light tag. I spent a few hours testing and doing math and came up with this suggestion: Remove the Light tag from worker units. 1. SCV - Biological, Light, Mechanical 1. Drone - Biological, Light1. Probe - Light, Mechanical This change dramatically improves worker survivability without changing army vs. army battles. Game-ending harassment is nerfed without being completely useless. Unfortunately, this change does nothing against problematic harassment units that don't deal bonus damage vs. light units (Mutalisks, Banshees, Liberators, etc.). It also does nothing to fix Protoss's weak core units and other design issues within the game. On the other hand, because Protoss harassment is no longer game-ending, their core units can be buffed to compensate. Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the right direction. No single change will bring about a better Starcraft 2. A combination of good changes is necessary. What do you think?
Don't you think that this is how it is supposed to be?
|
On April 23 2016 02:50 Buffbefehl wrote:
Don't you think that this is how it is supposed to be?
Can you be more specific? Are you saying that game-ending harassment should stay in the game? Or are you saying that my suggestion is how the game should be?
|
Can you be more specific? Are you saying that game-ending harassment should stay in the game? Or are you saying that my suggestion is how the game should be?
The current state of the game regarding harassment units. It makes the game more interactive and adds a lot of depth.
Your post did get downvoted for a reason other than not being famous or something like that. Sorry.
|
On April 23 2016 02:47 Eternal Dalek wrote:
What do you think?
This is an enormous nerf to Protoss and Terran vZ. If this were to get implemented larva mechanic would need a redesign. If drones don't die as easily, then Zerg shouldn't be able to make so many so fast as they can now.
|
I proposed removing "light" from workers years ago back when hellbats were OP, but everyone in the starcraft community whined about how it would break all the matchups. People will whine and Blizzard will ignore you, so no point in trying to explain it.
|
Your post was downvoted because it was dumb.
Harassing units are + light because workers are light. It's to make them effective vs workers, and not so effective vs other things. It's the whole purpose.
|
On April 23 2016 04:10 InfCereal wrote:
Your post was downvoted because it was dumb.
Harassing units are + light because workers are light. It's to make them effective vs workers, and not so effective vs other things. It's the whole purpose.
I think most people like lotv more than hots because there are more opportunities to harass. Indeed, that was the main reason they did the economy change, and it was the main complaint about the hots death balls.
Dalek is essentially saying "hey, you know that thing that everyone hated in hots, that they fixed in lotv? This is a suggestion that will make it like in hots again! It'll also mess up balance completely. Everyone down voted me on reddit, but that was only because [social injustice], because clearly my idea is great. What do you think?"
|
Complaint
Problem: adept shade is already powerful, but at the moment they can also shade past friendly force fields, which creates an unfair advantage given that force fields were meant to work as a double-edged sword wherein a protoss' ground forces cannot move past its own force fields save for colossus. Adepts cannot shade past buildings; force fields should be no exception.
Solution: remove adept's ability to shade past friendly force fields
Side Effects: protoss will not be able abuse ability to block an opponent's army with force fields and simultaneously shade their adepts past. Protoss will win fewer otherwise even games simply by trapping an opponent's army in a choke and then slaughtering the army with adepts that are allowed to get past the force fields.
|
On February 17 2017 02:44 vintagegamer wrote:
Complaint
Problem: adept shade is already powerful, but at the moment they can also shade past friendly force fields, which creates an unfair advantage given that force fields were meant to work as a double-edged sword wherein a protoss' ground forces cannot move past its own force fields save for colossus. Adepts cannot shade past buildings; force fields should be no exception.
Solution: remove adept's ability to shade past friendly force fields
Side Effects: protoss will not be able abuse ability to block an opponent's army with force fields and simultaneously shade their adepts past. Protoss will win fewer otherwise even games simply by trapping an opponent's army in a choke and then slaughtering the army with adepts that are allowed to get past the force fields.
First I'm not sure why you exhumed this thread.
Second, what you mention is a non-issue. Forcefieds are not building, I don't know why building rules should apply to them. And in LOTV, forcefields are very rare occurrences. Terrans have never been really affected by it, Zergs do not care that much ever since Ravagers are in the game, and Protoss always had ways to bypass them (Colossus, Archons, Blink Stalkers and now Adept Shade). I don't see your point.
|
On April 23 2016 04:10 InfCereal wrote:
Your post was downvoted because it was dumb.
Harassing units are + light because workers are light. It's to make them effective vs workers, and not so effective vs other things. It's the whole purpose.
A classic shit post that calls someone with an idea "dumb". And then comes up with an argument that isnt necessarily true either.
Also the reason a post gets downvoted can be many, the community doesnt reason well at all when it comes to downvoting stuff.
Personally i found the idea having merit. Tune down the harass from all races, i think though this change would come with other changes and blizzard dont want to do that. Ever it seems, so its a rather pointless discussion if the intent is to actually have it changed.
Could discuss it for other means though, nothing wrong with that.
|
On February 17 2017 18:52 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2016 04:10 InfCereal wrote:
Your post was downvoted because it was dumb.
Harassing units are + light because workers are light. It's to make them effective vs workers, and not so effective vs other things. It's the whole purpose. A classic shit post that calls someone with an idea "dumb". And then comes up with an argument that isnt necessarily true either. Also the reason a post gets downvoted can be many, the community doesnt reason well at all when it comes to downvoting stuff. Personally i found the idea having merit. Tune down the harass from all races, i think though this change would come with other changes and blizzard dont want to do that. Ever it seems, so its a rather pointless discussion if the intent is to actually have it changed. Could discuss it for other means though, nothing wrong with that.
You know you're rebutting ~9 months later, right?
|
On February 17 2017 22:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 18:52 Foxxan wrote:On April 23 2016 04:10 InfCereal wrote:
Your post was downvoted because it was dumb.
Harassing units are + light because workers are light. It's to make them effective vs workers, and not so effective vs other things. It's the whole purpose. A classic shit post that calls someone with an idea "dumb". And then comes up with an argument that isnt necessarily true either. Also the reason a post gets downvoted can be many, the community doesnt reason well at all when it comes to downvoting stuff. Personally i found the idea having merit. Tune down the harass from all races, i think though this change would come with other changes and blizzard dont want to do that. Ever it seems, so its a rather pointless discussion if the intent is to actually have it changed. Could discuss it for other means though, nothing wrong with that. You know you're rebutting ~9 months later, right?
I'm almost flattered
|
|
|
What does TL think about a slight nerf to storm? Zerg is having a really hard time against sky toss especially and storm is an integral part of that strategy. Storm seems to be a counter to everything Z on the ground so a slight nerf would not be crazy. Would this be a problem in PvT?
|
On March 14 2017 04:55 RaFox17 wrote:
What does TL think about a slight nerf to storm? Zerg is having a really hard time against sky toss especially and storm is an integral part of that strategy. Storm seems to be a counter to everything Z on the ground so a slight nerf would not be crazy. Would this be a problem in PvT?
late game yes.
Storm nerf is absolutely the wrong way to go. If anything needs to be nerfed you'd have to look at adepts, void rays, and carriers.
Nerf skytoss and buff archons
|
On March 14 2017 07:17 ruypture wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 04:55 RaFox17 wrote:
What does TL think about a slight nerf to storm? Zerg is having a really hard time against sky toss especially and storm is an integral part of that strategy. Storm seems to be a counter to everything Z on the ground so a slight nerf would not be crazy. Would this be a problem in PvT? late game yes. Storm nerf is absolutely the wrong way to go. If anything needs to be nerfed you'd have to look at adepts, void rays, and carriers. Nerf skytoss and buff archons
How, though? Changing the movement speeds would be the wrong way to go - base trades would just happen more often...
and increasing the archon's splash damage? RIP if two of them get into your mineral lines.
Maybe we could weaken the carrier's attack... maybe. But then you still have adept/voidray/archon to deal with :/
Blizzard is probably just crossing their fingers for now and hoping for the meta to evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
