EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 388
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
rwrzr
United States1980 Posts
| ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On November 11 2012 05:58 Mordanis wrote: Or if you look at the whole GSL season 5 instead of the 30 games T have played in Code S: http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=ALL&season=0&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27067&gamever=0&mapid=0 T has a 45% win ratio this season. http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=P&vsrace=ALL&season=0&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27067&gamever=0&mapid=0 While P has 40% http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=ALL&season=0&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27067&gamever=0&mapid=0 And Z has 70%. This is still based on only 106 games for T, but it still seems much more reliable, and goes to show that you're just trying to make T look worse than they are. The number you used is the % of bo3 wins, it's not really relevant, the set (= individual game) is the one to use because it's the one used everywhere else. | ||
|
Asturas
Finland587 Posts
In balancing the game there is always one problem. If You for example give to Protoss a fantastic unit to counter Infestor + Brood Lord composition it will break TvP, will make impossible to win as T vs P (just an example). But what if the solution to balance is making slight difference in matchups? Again example: Ghost was nerfed, like 2 times? EMP radius is smaller because it was too powerful against P and Snipe was nerfed because it was too powerful against Z. - but imagine if in games vs P Ghost had old, stronger Snipe (mass ghost strategies vs P) and in games vs Z old, bigger EMP radius (better counter to Infestor). Going the same way, Hight Templars could have Amulet upgrade in PvZ back. Bunkers in TvP could have old building times (although I have no idea which one, they were nerfed so many times  )The big problem I see are team games where it wouldn't work. But on the other hand, as the name says, they are team games so in team games races could stay in "normal balance". So again, it seems the problem is always that there are 3 races. Buff or Nerf one thing to balance one matchup, but it may as well break some other match up. That could be called an adjusting units to the matchup. Once good sniper, once good "EMPer" and in TvT just a regular Ghost or even unnerfed at all. This way of balancing the game could help even more in finding solutions to all "OP problems and so on". (Please don't kill me for my ideas  ) | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
On November 11 2012 19:19 Asturas wrote: I was wondering some time ago about one thing. In balancing the game there is always one problem. If You for example give to Protoss a fantastic unit to counter Infestor + Brood Lord composition it will break TvP, will make impossible to win as T vs P (just an example). But what if the solution to balance is making slight difference in matchups? Again example: Ghost was nerfed, like 2 times? EMP radius is smaller because it was too powerful against P and Snipe was nerfed because it was too powerful against Z. - but imagine if in games vs P Ghost had old, stronger Snipe (mass ghost strategies vs P) and in games vs Z old, bigger EMP radius (better counter to Infestor). Going the same way, Hight Templars could have Amulet upgrade in PvZ back. Bunkers in TvP could have old building times (although I have no idea which one, they were nerfed so many times )The big problem I see are team games where it wouldn't work. But on the other hand, as the name says, they are team games so in team games races could stay in "normal balance". So again, it seems the problem is always that there are 3 races. Buff or Nerf one thing to balance one matchup, but it may as well break some other match up. That could be called an adjusting units to the matchup. Once good sniper, once good "EMPer" and in TvT just a regular Ghost or even unnerfed at all. This way of balancing the game could help even more in finding solutions to all "OP problems and so on". (Please don't kill me for my ideas )KILL HIM ! But no, seriously, the key to design and balancing is to have clean, simple and on point solutions. That's way too convoluted, and maybe TLers would work their way with it, but there's also a huge casual base for whom it would be just confusing. Also, it's an ugly-ass solution :p | ||
|
sieksdekciw
240 Posts
On November 11 2012 19:19 Asturas wrote: This way of balancing the game could help even more in finding solutions to all "OP problems and so on". (Please don't kill me for my ideas )Well, it is a nice idea although I am pretty sure Blizzard will not even consider such things as it is too complex. One thing is for certain though: A unit dominates all matchups, even mirror. The infestor is worse than any other imbalance, worse than 5 rax reaper as they affected only one matchup, worse than khaidarian amulet since it affected only TvP and ZvP, and worse imbalance than ghost (which wasn't an imbalance imo) as it affected only TvZ. Infestor dominates ZvZ, ZvP, ZvT. Yet Blizzard seem to be hesitant taking action. My solution would be making infestor smaller, not allowing to cast if underground, and making fugal a projectile with 1.5 the speed of seeker missile, and maybe nerfing fungal range with one or two, as current fugal makes ravens useless as it has 3 more range and is insta cast so a competent zerg should never have any raven reaching close enough for a seeker. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 11 2012 06:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: TvZ confuses me because of people like MKP. Seriously, the dude goes MMM vs ling/bling on creep and comes out ahead. Then the Z adds in infestors and he STILL comes out ahead. The hell is that about? Nerf MKP. He builds more CCs and builds them earlier and uses cheap/costefficient units. Basically you must allin him or outplay him (Life), because if he goes unpunished he just gets an incredible eco advantage. | ||
|
vNmMasterT
68 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Jasiwel
United States146 Posts
| ||
|
Chylith
Canada167 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:51 Jasiwel wrote: Mutas are really brutal to Protoss I feel. I mean, if you scout it ASAP, then you're fine. However, if you don't and your opponent is smart, you'll have to face hordes of Zerglings and Zergling contains (not to mention Spines for defense). Though that really isn't a big deal, it's mainly that the time it take for the Mutas to be out in mass (like 10) is pretty quick considering how much damage they can deal to the economy alongside Lings. I know for strategies there are many to deal with this, like Scouting it, but what if you can't? I don't know, I feel like they should cost 125/125 like they did in BW just to decrease the number a bit. They cost 100/100 in Brood War too... There was never a time mutas were more or less than 100/100 as far as I'm aware. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On November 12 2012 13:37 Chylith wrote: They cost 100/100 in Brood War too... There was never a time mutas were more or less than 100/100 as far as I'm aware. That is correct. It's not that Mutas were weaker in Broodwar (although I think that their relative attack speed might have gone up a little in SC2), but that Protoss had better tools for dealing with them. Archons in BW fired faster, Psi Storm dealt damage faster (and did more damage), and Corsairs dealt splash damage. Also, Photon Cannons attacked faster in BW (although they had less HP). However, the real deal-breaker is the difference in income rates. In BW, Protoss generally had 2/3 the gas income of Zerg and around 5/4 to 6/4 the mineral income between more workers and probes mining faster (don't believe me? Check it out.). In SC2, Protoss generally have 2/3 the gas income and 2/3 the mineral income, and that difference in mineral income is really problem for Protoss, in a relative fashion. Also, as a slight nerf to cannons defending against mutas, Nexuses and mineral lines are bigger in SC2, and where in BW you could have 3 cannons around a Nexus that all covered each other from mutas, in SC2 3 cannons around a Nexus are 3 cannons that can be picked off one at a time. As an aside, if Zerg takes a 4th to Protoss's 3rd , the ratios are 4/3, but the point still stands. So, compared to BW, Zerg has a much stronger mobile ground army when using Muta play due to a relative surplus of minerals, while Protoss's mineral based defense is slightly less effective due to relatively larger bases. The end result is that while Mutas in BW where often a timing attack that had to do damage in BW (either probes as a 3-hatch muta build, or HT as a transition from 5-hatch hydra), mass Mutalisk alone is strong in SC2. | ||
|
Resistentialism
Canada688 Posts
| ||
|
Jasiwel
United States146 Posts
On November 12 2012 14:33 Kyadytim wrote: That is correct. It's not that Mutas were weaker in Broodwar (although I think that their relative attack speed might have gone up a little in SC2), but that Protoss had better tools for dealing with them. Archons in BW fired faster, Psi Storm dealt damage faster (and did more damage), and Corsairs dealt splash damage. Also, Photon Cannons attacked faster in BW (although they had less HP). However, the real deal-breaker is the difference in income rates. In BW, Protoss generally had 2/3 the gas income of Zerg and around 5/4 to 6/4 the mineral income between more workers and probes mining faster (don't believe me? Check it out.). In SC2, Protoss generally have 2/3 the gas income and 2/3 the mineral income, and that difference in mineral income is really problem for Protoss, in a relative fashion. Also, as a slight nerf to cannons defending against mutas, Nexuses and mineral lines are bigger in SC2, and where in BW you could have 3 cannons around a Nexus that all covered each other from mutas, in SC2 3 cannons around a Nexus are 3 cannons that can be picked off one at a time. As an aside, if Zerg takes a 4th to Protoss's 3rd , the ratios are 4/3, but the point still stands. So, compared to BW, Zerg has a much stronger mobile ground army when using Muta play due to a relative surplus of minerals, while Protoss's mineral based defense is slightly less effective due to relatively larger bases. The end result is that while Mutas in BW where often a timing attack that had to do damage in BW (either probes as a 3-hatch muta build, or HT as a transition from 5-hatch hydra), mass Mutalisk alone is strong in SC2. Thank you. I'm glad you got it. I could have sworn they were 125/125 though.... I just got owned again by someone who ultimately went mutalisk. The fact is, between the cost-effectiveness of Roaches and Lings, not to mention how easy it is for Zerg to snipe base economies with Lings against Protoss immobility, I feel Mutalisks are just overkill. Cannons are too weak to defend now and honestly there is no cost-efficient way for Protoss to win Muta situations unless there are Archons and HTs. I'm not even mentioning Stargates because those aren't really cost-effective, especially since it requires a ridiculous investment into tech that doesn't even matter after the Mutas are gone. All the opponent has to do is switch to Ling/Roach and it's GG. In reality, when you throw mutas in alongside the other Zerg units, the only thing you can depend on as Protoss is to be one step ahead or the Zerg player screwing up. | ||
|
convention
United States622 Posts
On November 12 2012 15:41 Jasiwel wrote: Thank you. I'm glad you got it. I could have sworn they were 125/125 though.... I just got owned again by someone who ultimately went mutalisk. The fact is, between the cost-effectiveness of Roaches and Lings, not to mention how easy it is for Zerg to snipe base economies with Lings against Protoss immobility, I feel Mutalisks are just overkill. Cannons are too weak to defend now and honestly there is no cost-efficient way for Protoss to win Muta situations unless there are Archons and HTs. I'm not even mentioning Stargates because those aren't really cost-effective, especially since it requires a ridiculous investment into tech that doesn't even matter after the Mutas are gone. All the opponent has to do is switch to Ling/Roach and it's GG. In reality, when you throw mutas in alongside the other Zerg units, the only thing you can depend on as Protoss is to be one step ahead or the Zerg player screwing up. I have the hardest time stopping mutas as protoss too, but I don't think mutas are too strong. Pros are pretty good at stopping mutas. The main problem is that it can be really tough figuring out if the zerg is going mutas or being super greedy, which require completely different responses. If there wasn't the crucial requirement to kill zerg being the greater spire finishes, then I don't think mutas would be a problem, because playing defensively if they teched up only puts you behind. Currently if you guess wrong you just lose. If you guess greedy play and go for collosus and zerg gets mutas you lose. If you guess mutas and go for storm/archons/blink, then you lose because you can't kill zerg before BLs enter the game. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
2012 Season 5 Code A Zerg winrate: 53% 7 out of 10 of the most recent major events have had over 40% Zerg representation by the round of 16. 4 of those 7 had 50% or more Zerg representation by that point. In those recent tournaments, Zergs captured half of the top 2 spots. Just some very small digging I did when Blizzard claimed that Zerg didn't have an advantage globally, at the highest levels of play. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
i assume the 64% was from the previous season which means that balance is actually going well without a major patch atm. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:27 monkybone wrote: Maybe. Still, what is the TvZ winrate? I'm more interested in that. Those are the (set) winrates in Code S for the last three seasons (since queen patch). GSL 2012, Season 3: ZvP: 45.8%, ZvT: 51.2%, TvP: 47.7% GSL 2012, Season 4: ZvP: 50.8%, ZvT: 53%, TvP: 47.8% GSL 2012, Season 5 (unfinished): ZvP: 58.5%, ZvT: 61.3%, TvP: 57% | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:40 Big J wrote: Those are the (set) winrates in Code S for the last three seasons (since queen patch). GSL 2012, Season 3: ZvP: 45.8%, ZvT: 51.2%, TvP: 47.7% GSL 2012, Season 4: ZvP: 50.8%, ZvT: 53%, TvP: 47.8% GSL 2012, Season 5 (unfinished): ZvP: 58.5%, ZvT: 61.3%, TvP: 57% Oh so contrary to what assira assumed tvz has been getting progressively worse. Not surprising if you somewhat follow gsl... | ||
| ||
