|
On March 27 2013 09:02 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:31 sAxiS wrote:
HOTS is a dream so far, so much closer to the positional style of BW. It's not perfect yet, but they are making positive progress. agree. the "balance feel" is much better than WoL. They abandonned the "terrible damage" thingy somewhat. reapers and mines are strong, but not devastating and you can counter them in a reasonable way. Zerg feels much better to play now compared to Wol, even though they got somewhat nerfed. Zerg has more tech options, so it is not that hard of a pressure to play super risky-greedy in order to win.
Not really sure i can agree with the part on zerg.
Outside of PvZ I think zergs options have actually decreased. Obviously in ZvZ, but also in TvZ which feels a lot like "banelings+" to me right now and any form of aggression is either a baneling bust or a mutalisk harass.
|
On March 27 2013 06:04 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:31 sAxiS wrote:
HOTS is a dream so far, so much closer to the positional style of BW. It's not perfect yet, but they are making positive progress. Yeah bro, nothing screams POSITIONAL like medivacs teleporting around the map with afterburners.
Okay bro, fill in the blank in these two sentences for me:
Faster Medivacs allow you to punish your opponent more harshly when he is out of ________.
He used boosted his Medivacs to get into ________ quicker.
In all seriousness Medivac boost should encourage good positional play and discourage bad positional play, with an emphasis on quick decisions since you have less time to react to them.
For example, someone who sees an opponents army out of position can punish them quicker with drops, while someone who sieges outside an opponents base (in TvT) must either make efficient use of their good position (rather than just sitting their sieged forever) and make sure any units at home are in a good position to defend against drops.
|
On March 27 2013 10:38 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:04 Toadvine wrote:On March 27 2013 05:31 sAxiS wrote:
HOTS is a dream so far, so much closer to the positional style of BW. It's not perfect yet, but they are making positive progress. Yeah bro, nothing screams POSITIONAL like medivacs teleporting around the map with afterburners. Okay bro, fill in the blank in these two sentences for me: Faster Medivacs allow you to punish your opponent more harshly when he is out of ________. He used boosted his Medivacs to get into ________ quicker. In all seriousness Medivac boost should encourage good positional play and discourage bad positional play, with an emphasis on quick decisions since you have less time to react to them. For example, someone who sees an opponents army out of position can punish them quicker with drops, while someone who sieges outside an opponents base (in TvT) must either make efficient use of their good position (rather than just sitting their sieged forever) and make sure any units at home are in a good position to defend against drops.
I just want to say something, and I don't mean to argue, but what I see from HotS streams, Viper just says "Oh, your Collosus/Tanks are in optimal position? Fuck that shit!"
I just got home buying HotS so I don't have any actual experience yet, so I'm getting pumped. And scared. 
|
Let's discuss something a bit different that has nothing to do with specific race or unit.
In general, what % do you guys think is the acceptable line for a "balanced" match-up?
50% each is obviously the best, but that ideal doesn't happen. So, in reality, we say that a match-up is balanced enough when winrates are relatively close. For the sake of discussion, assume that top-level sample size is large enough to alleviate a few players' extreme records, no particular strategy is OP, games are entertaining for spectators, the balance has already stabilized etc. These are not the main topic here. Having somehow satisfied all these side factors, would you say 55% for the advantageous race is acceptable? or should it be closer like 51%?
For reference, this is how balance would look in best of series.
60% in a best of 1 translates into 68.26% winrate in a best of 5 series for example.
Bo1 Bo3 Bo5
50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
51.00% 51.50% 51.87%
52.00% 53.00% 53.75%
53.00% 54.49% 55.61%
54.00% 55.99% 57.47%
55.00% 57.48% 59.31%
56.00% 58.96% 61.14%
57.00% 60.43% 62.95%
58.00% 61.90% 64.75%
59.00% 63.35% 66.51%
60.00% 64.80% 68.26%
55% lets advantageous side win a best of 5 about 60% (59.31%) which I think is huge. Personally, I feel 52% would be the acceptable line. Also, among race A,B,C, the relationship of A>B>C>A within such balance for all 3 match-ups would be fair. What do you guys think? Am I too lenient to think 52% is OK?
|
Northern Ireland27477 Posts
On March 27 2013 06:04 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:31 sAxiS wrote:
HOTS is a dream so far, so much closer to the positional style of BW. It's not perfect yet, but they are making positive progress. Yeah bro, nothing screams POSITIONAL like medivacs teleporting around the map with afterburners.
Yeah because you don't need good positioning to defend against Speedivacs...
|
|
|
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable.
|
On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable.
zealots getting more health? that just gives me shivers
|
On March 27 2013 13:32 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. zealots getting more health? that just gives me shivers
Late game enough where ultralisks and hellbats are out and about in full effect and zealots are shaking in their psi boots.
|
On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable.
Too many units are hard countering marines at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to blink giving them the ability to shift quickly into position. Our beloved marines are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Blink/charge should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old zealot/stalker. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable.
|
On March 27 2013 13:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. Too many units are hard countering marines at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to blink giving them the ability to shift quickly into position. Our beloved marines are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet! I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Blink/charge should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old zealot/stalker. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable.
Marines can't teleport you silly man thats for protoss. Also telepathy doesn't cost fuel but a flying ship probably kinda should.
|
On March 27 2013 13:34 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:32 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote:On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. zealots getting more health? that just gives me shivers Late game enough where ultralisks and hellbats are out and about in full effect and zealots are shaking in their psi boots.
Well thank god TBH, WOL zealot warp ins were way too frustrating to deal with as terran. Hellbats were specifically made to combat the late game of mass zealot warp ins to defend anything.
|
On March 27 2013 13:34 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:32 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote:On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. zealots getting more health? that just gives me shivers Late game enough where ultralisks and hellbats are out and about in full effect and zealots are shaking in their psi boots.
I probably should've added that it already takes like 30+ clicks to kill a pack of zealots that was instantly warped in after the battle which just delays the terran enough for you to get out collo and hts. If the terran really has so many hellbats then you should be stoked because they must be going mech in which case you have probably already won. 20 Health may not seem like a lot but when you include the plus three armor and shields they would just take too long too kill, there's not enough room on daybreak to keep microing back again and again and again...
|
Yeah, wtf Zealots don't need a buff. Upgraded zealots with charge are already decent units.
|
On March 27 2013 13:40 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:36 plogamer wrote:On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. Too many units are hard countering marines at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to blink giving them the ability to shift quickly into position. Our beloved marines are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet! I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Blink/charge should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old zealot/stalker. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. Marines can't teleport you silly man thats for protoss. Also telepathy doesn't cost fuel but a flying ship probably kinda should.
You cannot be arguing lore in a balance thread. Oh my god, yes you are. " Also telepathy doesn't cost fuel but a flying ship probably kinda should ?!
My point was that zealots were very decent, and overly on the strong side if you don't or just simple can't kite them as a Terran. And the idea that zealots need a buff is ridiculous.
|
The idea of Zealots getting a buff is ludicrous. They're accomplishing their job splendidly (front-lining for the more expensive Protoss forces), and aren't supposed to be a catch-all solution.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 27 2013 13:19 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 12:41 Orek wrote:Let's discuss something a bit different that has nothing to do with specific race or unit. In general, what % do you guys think is the acceptable line for a "balanced" match-up?50% each is obviously the best, but that ideal doesn't happen. So, in reality, we say that a match-up is balanced enough when winrates are relatively close. For the sake of discussion, assume that top-level sample size is large enough to alleviate a few players' extreme records, no particular strategy is OP, games are entertaining for spectators, the balance has already stabilized etc. These are not the main topic here. Having somehow satisfied all these side factors, would you say 55% for the advantageous race is acceptable? or should it be closer like 51%? For reference, this is how balance would look in best of series. 60% in a best of 1 translates into 68.26% winrate in a best of 5 series for example.
Bo1 Bo3 Bo5
50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
51.00% 51.50% 51.87%
52.00% 53.00% 53.75%
53.00% 54.49% 55.61%
54.00% 55.99% 57.47%
55.00% 57.48% 59.31%
56.00% 58.96% 61.14%
57.00% 60.43% 62.95%
58.00% 61.90% 64.75%
59.00% 63.35% 66.51%
60.00% 64.80% 68.26%
55% lets advantageous side win a best of 5 about 60% (59.31%) which I think is huge. Personally, I feel 52% would be the acceptable line. Also, among race A,B,C, the relationship of A>B>C>A within such balance for all 3 match-ups would be fair. What do you guys think? Am I too lenient to think 52% is OK? I would say 55 because you have to account for all the possible variables and a 4 percent margin of error is too small.
Well, if it was within 55%, intelligent mapmaking could help bring the value even closer to 50%, so I'd say 55% would be good enough.
|
On March 27 2013 14:21 BrokenMirage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:19 Emzeeshady wrote:On March 27 2013 12:41 Orek wrote:Let's discuss something a bit different that has nothing to do with specific race or unit. In general, what % do you guys think is the acceptable line for a "balanced" match-up?50% each is obviously the best, but that ideal doesn't happen. So, in reality, we say that a match-up is balanced enough when winrates are relatively close. For the sake of discussion, assume that top-level sample size is large enough to alleviate a few players' extreme records, no particular strategy is OP, games are entertaining for spectators, the balance has already stabilized etc. These are not the main topic here. Having somehow satisfied all these side factors, would you say 55% for the advantageous race is acceptable? or should it be closer like 51%? For reference, this is how balance would look in best of series. 60% in a best of 1 translates into 68.26% winrate in a best of 5 series for example.
Bo1 Bo3 Bo5
50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
51.00% 51.50% 51.87%
52.00% 53.00% 53.75%
53.00% 54.49% 55.61%
54.00% 55.99% 57.47%
55.00% 57.48% 59.31%
56.00% 58.96% 61.14%
57.00% 60.43% 62.95%
58.00% 61.90% 64.75%
59.00% 63.35% 66.51%
60.00% 64.80% 68.26%
55% lets advantageous side win a best of 5 about 60% (59.31%) which I think is huge. Personally, I feel 52% would be the acceptable line. Also, among race A,B,C, the relationship of A>B>C>A within such balance for all 3 match-ups would be fair. What do you guys think? Am I too lenient to think 52% is OK? I would say 55 because you have to account for all the possible variables and a 4 percent margin of error is too small. Well, if it was within 55%, intelligent mapmaking could help bring the value even closer to 50%, so I'd say 55% would be good enough.
I'd love to trust mapmakers to shore up numbers, but they didn't do a damn thing for a year while Zerg was the powerhouse. We still have overlord nooks, gigantic pathways, and a lack of overlooks that siege units can take advantage of. Maybe BW mapmakers did a good job, but SC2 have largely been close minded and awful.
|
On March 27 2013 13:19 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 12:41 Orek wrote:Let's discuss something a bit different that has nothing to do with specific race or unit. In general, what % do you guys think is the acceptable line for a "balanced" match-up?50% each is obviously the best, but that ideal doesn't happen. So, in reality, we say that a match-up is balanced enough when winrates are relatively close. For the sake of discussion, assume that top-level sample size is large enough to alleviate a few players' extreme records, no particular strategy is OP, games are entertaining for spectators, the balance has already stabilized etc. These are not the main topic here. Having somehow satisfied all these side factors, would you say 55% for the advantageous race is acceptable? or should it be closer like 51%? For reference, this is how balance would look in best of series. 60% in a best of 1 translates into 68.26% winrate in a best of 5 series for example.
Bo1 Bo3 Bo5
50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
51.00% 51.50% 51.87%
52.00% 53.00% 53.75%
53.00% 54.49% 55.61%
54.00% 55.99% 57.47%
55.00% 57.48% 59.31%
56.00% 58.96% 61.14%
57.00% 60.43% 62.95%
58.00% 61.90% 64.75%
59.00% 63.35% 66.51%
60.00% 64.80% 68.26%
55% lets advantageous side win a best of 5 about 60% (59.31%) which I think is huge. Personally, I feel 52% would be the acceptable line. Also, among race A,B,C, the relationship of A>B>C>A within such balance for all 3 match-ups would be fair. What do you guys think? Am I too lenient to think 52% is OK? I would say 55 because you have to account for all the possible variables and a 4 percent margin of error is too small.
For me its 52/53%. 55% results in almost 60% in bo5 which practically meanst that one side has 50% higher chance to win bo5. Not balanced in my opinion.
|
On March 27 2013 13:32 TerranosaurusWrecks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:27 kidcrash wrote:
Too many units are hard countering zealots at the moment. I'd like to see a late game upgrade similair to combat shields giving them +20 shields. Our beloved zealots are becoming obsolete so why don't we give them something to get them back on their feet!
I'd also like to see Blizzard implement something they've never had before in the SC universe. Afterburners should have their own fuel source that eventually runs out completely. Meaning once it's empty you're back to regular old medivac. Really puts some tension on decision making and makes it way less spamable. zealots getting more health? that just gives me shivers
they had 160 in BW, only 150 in SC2. Also speed was the same as stim was permanently, now it's 2.75 vs 3.375
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
