EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 260
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Iamyournoob
Germany595 Posts
On July 12 2012 16:56 MiraculiX wrote: If it turned out that as a fact terran is much harder to play than the other two races; If you had to be a much better player to win a standard game. How would that be expressed in statistics we're currently looking at to get an idea of balance? Terran is a race where your units benefit a lot from player skill. If you have good micro, your marines become those insane battle machines they are in the hands of players like MKP. If you have great micro, you can split them and greatly reduce the power of units like banelings. Also Terran units scream from drop play which further benefits players with great multi tasking skills. The problem I see with Protoss and with Zerg in particular is that they do not necessarily have units that can have their effectiveness amplified by a large margin through great control. Protoss has at least FF and stalker micro is neat, also you can opt for drop play, but it is not nearly as rewarding as Marine micro or Medivac drops. When it comes to Zerg, I do not really know what you can do with roaches and lings apart from 1a'ing them. Infestors require some micro, however I feel that both Ghosts and HTs have way more interesting game dynamics. Now the problem I see is that Terrans have been owning face since beta because the good players could exploit the micro potential of their units, whereas Protoss and Zergs were limited to the microability of their one dimensional deathball and 1a units - no matter how good they were. So instead of giving Z and P interesting tools to play with, Blizzard nerfed the shit out of Terran which made it essentially very difficult for non-top level players to keep up against Zergs and Protosses. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On July 15 2012 20:06 LavaLava wrote: Ideally you want all three races to be about the same difficulty. A lot of the issues for Terran come from the fact that Bio units are so good but so hard to use, and half of everything else is unreliable or just not worth getting. Bio demands a lot of multitasking and aggressive play, which intermediate level players can't handle. once "any old thing" stops working and players have to get serious, the Terrans get really frustrated at the lack of mechanically easy options. Higher difficulty isn't as big a problem for really good players as it is for bad players, but you do have to remember Blizzard's priorities for game design: 1. Fun for Everyone 2. Balanced for Professionals 3. Balanced for Everyone 4. Fun for Professionals If the game is too frustrating for lower level and intermediate players, it doesn't matter if each race wins tournaments 33.33% of the time. Not enough people will watch them. I think Blizzard directly acknowledged the desire to round Terran down to level with Zerg and Protoss, when they proposed the battle hellion and the warhound's automatic missiles. They actually said that the ease of these units was intentional because giving Terran any extra clicks would be "mean". I just hope a resolution is found for Wings of Liberty This I think is the best analysis I saw on this thread recently, and I'm not even Terran. For the game to be popular, it needs to be balanced on ladder level so that people still play and stay interested AT THE SAME TIME AS balanced on the top level so that people can enjoy watching GSL and other tournaments. Blizzard is somewhat caught in the middle like middle-level manager who is trying to satisfy both his boss and his subordinates. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On July 15 2012 20:32 Iamyournoob wrote: Terran is a race where your units benefit a lot from player skill. If you have good micro, your marines become those insane battle machines they are in the hands of players like MKP. If you have great micro, you can split them and greatly reduce the power of units like banelings. Also Terran units scream from drop play which further benefits players with great multi tasking skills. The problem I see with Protoss and with Zerg in particular is that they do not necessarily have units that can have their effectiveness amplified by a large margin through great control. Protoss has at least FF and stalker micro is neat, also you can opt for drop play, but it is not nearly as rewarding as Marine micro or Medivac drops. When it comes to Zerg, I do not really know what you can do with roaches and lings apart from 1a'ing them. Infestors require some micro, however I feel that both Ghosts and HTs have way more interesting game dynamics. Now the problem I see is that Terrans have been owning face since beta because the good players could exploit the micro potential of their units, whereas Protoss and Zergs were limited to the microability of their one dimensional deathball and 1a units - no matter how good they were. So instead of giving Z and P interesting tools to play with, Blizzard nerfed the shit out of Terran which made it essentially very difficult for non-top level players to keep up against Zergs and Protosses. It's way easier to nerf than to admit that the game isn't well designed. Blizzard had to find a scapegoat to hide their mistakes it turn out that terran was the strongest race , that was perfect for them. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
Please keep in mid: The numbers show what they show nothing more. The reasons for the results can be anything and is not in the data. Data inbalance != gamedesign inbalance Also keep in mind to keep tiers in this thread only ! | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On July 15 2012 21:07 Psychobabas wrote: I believe that HotS will fix a lot of issues. However, we seriously need some kind of patch here. You are optimistic , I believe that HotS will just add some more problems to the game :/ | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On July 15 2012 21:26 algue wrote: You are optimistic , I believe that HotS will just add some more problems to the game :/ Blizzard's plan: more problems into all 3 races =balanced. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
TvP gamelength,%race1 win,%race2win, %of games 0,44.9,55.1,3.66 5,40.71,59.29,13.9 10,58.32,41.68,24.21 15,59.7,40.3,24.78 20,45.72,54.28,18.31 25,37.79,62.21,9.16 30,35.04,64.96,3.49 35,46.71,53.29,2.49 This is really interesting and fits overall with the general idea of how the match up goes. The idea that terran is incredibly vulnerable to protoss both early and late game but overwhelmingly has the advantage from the moment stim comes out until protoss gets their tech up (15-20 minutes) followed by a significant drop off as we enter the late game. I am curious what is happening at the 35 minute mark, however. An overwhelming number of games (44%) are settled around one timing (the 10m stim push timing). This is bad. If and when protoss change the metagame to defend this push, the match up will swing hugely in P's favour. If they can't do this, it means that particular timing is overpowered. Either way its a problem. TvZ gamelength,%race1 win,%race2win, %of games 0,37.13,62.87,3.78 5,33.78,66.22,9.15 10,46.91,53.09,15.96 15,52.51,47.49,22.12 20,47.88,52.12,22.9 25,44.36,55.64,14.3 30,50.0,50.0,6.65 35,48.08,51.92,5.12 There are only a fraction of games which end with terran on an equal footing with zerg before ten minutes. This is basically baneling bust/hellion all in timing. This statistic will start to skew even more as terrans become more greedy in the metagame. I think something needs to be done about this. 10-20 minutes, the match up evens out as terrans get seige tanks and start to drop, forcing a zerg back. 20m is a period of broodlord/infestor/ultra. I'd even put the slight dip at 15-20m in zerg power down to terrans punishing early BLs and doing really big tank/marine pushes. Past 30m, terran has enough time to get an appropriate composition and the bases for zerg start to spread out with an immobile army. I don't think you can pick too much from this other than far too many games are ended in periods where the match up is extremely one sided. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 15 2012 21:50 Evangelist wrote: I am just reinterpreting data here that skeldark has provided so I can't say much for its veracity or otherwise - I don't have the time or the inclination right now to do my own statistics. This is really interesting and fits overall with the general idea of how the match up goes. The idea that terran is incredibly vulnerable to protoss both early and late game but overwhelmingly has the advantage from the moment stim comes out until protoss gets their tech up (15-20 minutes) followed by a significant drop off as we enter the late game. I am curious what is happening at the 35 minute mark, however. An overwhelming number of games (44%) are settled around one timing (the 10m stim push timing). This is bad. If and when protoss change the metagame to defend this push, the match up will swing hugely in P's favour. If they can't do this, it means that particular timing is overpowered. Either way its a problem. There are only a fraction of games which end with terran on an equal footing with zerg before ten minutes. This is basically baneling bust/hellion all in timing. This statistic will start to skew even more as terrans become more greedy in the metagame. I think something needs to be done about this. 10-20 minutes, the match up evens out as terrans get seige tanks and start to drop, forcing a zerg back. 20m is a period of broodlord/infestor/ultra. I'd even put the slight dip at 15-20m in zerg power down to terrans punishing early BLs and doing really big tank/marine pushes. Past 30m, terran has enough time to get an appropriate composition and the bases for zerg start to spread out with an immobile army. I don't think you can pick too much from this other than far too many games are ended in periods where the match up is extremely one sided. I'd say the TvP anomaly has more to do with the fact that many Terran players overcommit to 10 min Medivac pushes because they're not confident in their late game and, upon failing it, are irrevocable behind and basically go through a glorified death animation from that point forward. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
This overall reduces importance of on time larva injects, but also means zerg cannot float minerals. If they float minerals, it will severely hurt them from losing passive larva regen from hatcheries (only occurs when under 3) and forces them to spend minerals to increase production so they can't stock up on minerals and larva all game. It also means zerg can't just throw away an army, and remax 200/200 late game with some absurb amount of late game units. This change shouldn't affect early or early mid game, but will hurt mid and late game zergs that can't control their resources and end up floating a ton of minerals (but which is ok, floating minerals is no big deal atm as long as you have larva saved up and ready). | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:48 monkybone wrote: Larva mechanic in the late game is fine. People should realize it's the way Zerg get into the lategame that's the problem. The problem is that they can safely make too many drones early on. opposite side of the same problem. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:44 iky43210 wrote: how to balance zerg late game: Make larva stock cap at 7 per hatcheries (or whatever arbitrary amount). This overall reduces importance of on time larva injects, but also means zerg cannot float minerals. If they float minerals, it will severely hurt them from losing passive larva regen from hatcheries (only occurs when under 3) and forces them to spend minerals to increase production so they can't stock up on minerals and larva all game. It also means zerg can't just throw away an army, and remax 200/200 late game with some absurb amount of late game units. This change shouldn't affect early or early mid game, but will hurt mid and late game zergs that can't control their resources and end up floating a ton of minerals (but which is ok, floating minerals is no big deal atm as long as you have larva saved up and ready). Agreed 1000%. A couple of games at NASL this weekend helped to demonstrate everything wrong with SC2 right now, particularly the games involving Stephano pumping out over 100 Lings off of 3 base because of stacked Larvae. I can't be the only person who thinks this, but watching Zerg players float thousands of resources in anticipation of an inevitable tech switch is boring, silly, greedy, and necessitates the race being balanced around being able to defend without actually committing to making an army. When I want to do a 3 Colossus push, I need to actually wait for the Colossi, which have a build time and must be built in succession. When Zerg wants to go into Muta play, they just need to wait for the Spire to finish and immediately build 10+ Mutas. It wouldn't even be so bad if Zerg units were as cost-inefficient as people like Idra would have you believe, but they're not. Aside from the Roach against Terran and the Hydra in general, every Zerg units trades efficiently against most things the other races can throw at it. Even the Roach is starting to find a use in ZvT. Lings trade excellent with Stalkers, Marauders, small numbers of Marines, and anything that isn't a Colossus/Templar. Roaches are known for their cost-efficiency in the PvZ matchup. Hydras are bad. Mutas are not "efficient" per se, but then they're meant as a harassment unit rather than a fighting unit. Infestors are easily the most efficient unit in the game due to their versatility and scaling nature. Broodlords are awesome, Ultralisks are good when paired with Infestors. Seems like a pretty good tech tree to me, honestly. Aside from the Hydralisk, nothing is any worse than the units of any other race, but everything is cheaper, can be produced en masse, and benefits from Creep. It's time to fundamentally re-evaluate what the Zerg race actually is right now. | ||
|
BadBinky
Finland649 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:35 Shiori wrote: I'd say the TvP anomaly has more to do with the fact that many Terran players overcommit to 10 min Medivac pushes because they're not confident in their late game and, upon failing it, are irrevocable behind and basically go through a glorified death animation from that point forward. It's the same for every match up. For example most zvp's I win the protoss does some 2 base timing at around 10min but taps out at 20min mark. They might aswel GG out at 12min. The ones I lose protoss does some 2 base timing and I tap out at 10-15. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:51 monkybone wrote: Not exactly, capping larva would be fixing the wrong issue. The core imbalance of the matchup would remain. Creating artificial boundaries to Zerg in the wrong place is like making up for imbalance by forcing imbalance somewhere else. It isn't just about tweaking the matchup to make the winrates even. What you describe only fixes "balance" as we know it, as it gives advantages to terran/protoss early game and advantages to zerg late game. A fix to zerg's larva mechanics is what actually fixes the imbalance between early, mid, and late game advantages (with some other minor adjustment as well). Playing ticking time bomb has its moments, but this kind of balance techniques are incredibly fragile and minor changes in early or mid game will create loopsided problems like current state of TvZ | ||
|
ysnake
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
Should we limit how many Barracks can a Terran have as well then? This whole thread is about how Terran are just severely set back by the Queen buff which may have been excessive, 4 range would have been fine, I agree on that. But why does everyone want to nerf Zerg's macro mechanics? Have you ever played Zerg? Zerg is not a race that can press 4-sssss 5-aaaaa, we have to choose between Drones and Units (the whole point of the race is to outnumber you). There are still SO MANY timings a Terran can hit and kill the Zerg outright. It is annoying that the gglords are out there and Terran cannot do much about the composition unless he has a shitton of Vikings (or has scanned in time and saw the Greater Spire), and it can be annoying knowing that you cannot engage the army out front but rather chop the Zerg around with drops and all those shenanigans, delaying the push until you have enough Vikings out. Honestly, as Zerg, my most annoying MU is currently ZvT, simply because there is almost no metagame composition, I encountered Marine/Hellion into 5+ Banshee pushes, mech with 3-4 Siege Tanks, 4-5 Thors, 10+ Hellions and 5 Ravens (PDD works wonders against Roaches, especially when you drop 5 of them). It is not impossible for Terran to win, Queen may need a nerf to range 4 (so that is on pair with Hellions), but late-game has not changed whatsoever except the fact that Zerg can get to it much faster now. Edit: Remember, Zerg cannot kill you unless he is doing an allin, that's what they are changing in HotS, and I love that change. There was a proposal that Zerg's larvae count should be limited by whether it is a Hatchery, Lair or Hive, that is a good change, but 7 larvae per building is just fucking absurd. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:44 iky43210 wrote: how to balance zerg late game: Make larva stock cap at 7 per hatcheries (or whatever arbitrary amount). This overall reduces importance of on time larva injects, but also means zerg cannot float minerals. If they float minerals, it will severely hurt them from losing passive larva regen from hatcheries (only occurs when under 3) and forces them to spend minerals to increase production so they can't stock up on minerals and larva all game. It also means zerg can't just throw away an army, and remax 200/200 late game with some absurb amount of late game units. This change shouldn't affect early or early mid game, but will hurt mid and late game zergs that can't control their resources and end up floating a ton of minerals (but which is ok, floating minerals is no big deal atm as long as you have larva saved up and ready). I suggested some pages ago, but I think limiting maximum larvae count is a viable way to nerf ONLY late agme without affecting eraly-mid game. Currently 19 is maximum. The reason why Blizzard made it 19 is probably 3 spontaneous generation + 4 injects = 3+4*4=19. I suggested 11 for Hatchery 15 for Lair 19 for Hive. 3+ 2 injects =3+3*2=11 3+ 3 injects =3+3*3=15 3+ 4 injects =3+3*4=19 Then, which hatchery to morph into lair becomes a more important decision than it currently is, or we might see multiple lair late game. Also storywise, it makes more sense when lair/hive state can hold more larvae than just hatchery. | ||
| ||
