Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 652

On August 03 2013 04:25 larse wrote:
Update: Balance talk between David Kim and Chinese progamer Jim and XY.




The balance talk is not very well done by the players and it is quite biased. So I summarize a few important points from David Kim:

1. We won't change balance based on a single region.

2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.

3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.

4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.

5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.

6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.

Source: http://game.163.com/13/0802/10/9592VVA900314QV4.html

On August 03 2013 04:42 stille_nacht wrote:
Aren't the aggregate numbers for high level tournaments showing 55/45 for TvZ? I remember seeing in on SC reddit the other day, he had his sources cited, but i can't for the life of me remember. I've never heard anything close to 70/30...

I do think TvZ is kinda imbalanced in favor of the terran though. I feel like the map control/ chance of a large hit for widow mines is too large. It's similar to hellbat (though to a much lesser degree), the cost for what the potential benefits are is just so low.
However, i don't think it's that imbalanced in fights, because with good micro you can usually bait things out, or even hit the rines with the mine explosions.
So, i'd suggest buffing overseer vision/detection range by ~2. That way they have a much easier time detecting and removing mines so long as they keep overseers alive and active. This significantly lessens the volatility that widow mines bring to zergs attempting to mutalingbane while preserving the pure power of the mine

On August 03 2013 04:42 stille_nacht wrote:
Aren't the aggregate numbers for high level tournaments showing 55/45 for TvZ? I remember seeing in on SC reddit the other day, he had his sources cited, but i can't for the life of me remember. I've never heard anything close to 70/30...

I do think TvZ is kinda imbalanced in favor of the terran though. I feel like the map control/ chance of a large hit for widow mines is too large. It's similar to hellbat (though to a much lesser degree), the cost for what the potential benefits are is just so low.
However, i don't think it's that imbalanced in fights, because with good micro you can usually bait things out, or even hit the rines with the mine explosions.
So, i'd suggest buffing overseer vision/detection range by ~2. That way they have a much easier time detecting and removing mines so long as they keep overseers alive and active. This significantly lessens the volatility that widow mines bring to zergs attempting to mutalingbane while preserving the pure power of the mine

 
           P     T     Z  
------------------------------
WCS S1 KR  2(0)  2(0)  4(0)  
IEM 7 WC   4(1)  2(0)  2(1)  
MLG winter 3(0)  4(0)  1(0)  
WCS EU s1  3(1)  4(2)  1(3)  
DH STKHML  2(1)  1(0)  5(1)  
WCS US S1  3(0)  2(0)  3(2)  
WCS S1 F   2(0)  4(0)  2(0)  
DHS        1(0)  3(2)  4(1)  
HSC        2(0)  1(0)  5(3)  
MLG Spring 4(1)  2(0)  2(0)  
DHV        3(1)  1(1)  4(1)
IEM SH     3(0)  2(0)  3(0)
WCS S2 KR  2(0)  4(0)  2(0)
ASUS ROG   3(0)  2(1)  3(1)
------------------------------
total     37(5) 34(6)  41(13)  

If anything needs a buf it is the toss, but perhaps Stardust will take Asus ROG and (most likely) Rain will take WCS Korea Season 2 and all will be fine in the universe.

On August 03 2013 04:42 stille_nacht wrote:
Aren't the aggregate numbers for high level tournaments showing 55/45 for TvZ? I remember seeing in on SC reddit the other day, he had his sources cited, but i can't for the life of me remember. I've never heard anything close to 70/30...

I do think TvZ is kinda imbalanced in favor of the terran though. I feel like the map control/ chance of a large hit for widow mines is too large. It's similar to hellbat (though to a much lesser degree), the cost for what the potential benefits are is just so low.
However, i don't think it's that imbalanced in fights, because with good micro you can usually bait things out, or even hit the rines with the mine explosions.
So, i'd suggest buffing overseer vision/detection range by ~2. That way they have a much easier time detecting and removing mines so long as they keep overseers alive and active. This significantly lessens the volatility that widow mines bring to zergs attempting to mutalingbane while preserving the pure power of the mine

On August 03 2013 07:04 Big J wrote:
also you somtimes get those situations were you dont know whether the overseer detected the mine and you can attack it, or if it's just the animation before the shot and you are about to lose the game because your overseer is just not im range yet.

On August 03 2013 06:58 xyzz wrote:

Nothing would be worse for Protoss players right now than Stardust doing 15 consecutive 1 and 2 base all ins and winning Asus ROG, and Rain beating Maru in the OSL finals. It would mean that despite the race being actually and factually completely broken in both concept and design, David Kim would have ammunition to claim that all is well. HOTS was a huge failure for Protoss. The only succesful unit was the Mothership Core, and everyone hates to play against it since it counters early game Terran and Protoss pressure too well. Both the Oracle and Tempest are awful and really add nothing to the game. Compared to Hellbats, Widow Mines, Swarm Hosts and Vipers, the Protoss additions have been a tragic joke.

On August 03 2013 07:10 TheDwf wrote:

Zerg loses one muta to mine = Zerg loses the game?

On August 03 2013 07:10 scypio wrote:


It's not that bad. Stardust winning with some strong timings will display the viability of aggressive protoss play and Rain will provide us with a perfect example of turtle/macro options.

I agree that there is something bad about toss, I remember this conversation from a ladder rvr:
- damn, I got the crappy race
- what? you're protoss too?
... but I don't know if there is a way to fix it. I can only agree that the early game feels way too safe for the protoss but nerfing them will not help evening things out in terms of performance so I'm a bit torn here.

On August 03 2013 06:41 Rabiator wrote:

The chance for a large hit with the Widow Mine is the same as it WOULD BE for burrowed Baneling ... except Zerg are too stupid or too greedy to get the burrow upgrade. That chance is entirely dependant upon your opponent NOT DETECTING and running into the AoE with a big clump.

There are only two minor advantages of the Widow Mine has over the Banelings in that they can shoot air and they can shoot several times, but Widow Mines have a secondary job to do and that is harrassment defense ... and Mutalisks are a potential harrass ... just as many others units from Terran and Protoss are. Banelings can be used offensively and in a targeted way even against buildings, so the two units are kinda even IMO.

On August 03 2013 06:58 xyzz wrote:

Nothing would be worse for Protoss players right now than Stardust doing 15 consecutive 1 and 2 base all ins and winning Asus ROG, and Rain beating Maru in the OSL finals. It would mean that despite the race being actually and factually completely broken in both concept and design, David Kim would have ammunition to claim that all is well.

HOTS was a huge failure for Protoss. The only succesful unit was the Mothership Core, and everyone hates to play against it since it counters early game Terran and Protoss pressure too well. Both the Oracle and Tempest are awful and really add nothing to the game. Compared to Hellbats, Widow Mines, Swarm Hosts and Vipers, the Protoss additions have been a tragic joke.

On August 03 2013 09:42 Wingblade wrote:


I'm not sure if I agree with that sentiment regarding Tempests. Yes oracles are really bad, but the Tempest serves its designed function really well. So well in fact that the unit it counters isn't built in either of the 2 non mirrors now. And Tempests have become instrumental anti colossus, and anti-opponents tempests unit in PvP. Mega late game Tempests against Mega late game mass Ghosts in PvT also needs more experimentation IMO because of how effectively Tempests could zone out approaching ghosts as long as you have sufficient observer count with speed which is easily affordable when this situation could happen. We saw this in Parting vs Flash from The Group of Death last season whrn Parting mixed Tempests in lategame to gain positional advantage on the ghosts. In PvZ broodlords simply don't exist because of the power of Tempests.

On August 03 2013 06:56 Lock0n wrote:
TvZ mid game is Terran favoured, late game is definitely Zerg favoured, due to Zerg production. The way in which Terran is winning most games is by extending the mid game by never letting opponent turtle up and tech to ultra. Every TvZ where Zerg manages to get a few ultras, it always seems like Zerg come out on top of most fights by A moving.

On August 03 2013 09:42 Wingblade wrote:


I'm not sure if I agree with that sentiment regarding Tempests. Yes oracles are really bad, but the Tempest serves its designed function really well. So well in fact that the unit it counters isn't built in either of the 2 non mirrors now. And Tempests have become instrumental anti colossus, and anti-opponents tempests unit in PvP. Mega late game Tempests against Mega late game mass Ghosts in PvT also needs more experimentation IMO because of how effectively Tempests could zone out approaching ghosts as long as you have sufficient observer count with speed which is easily affordable when this situation could happen. We saw this in Parting vs Flash from The Group of Death last season whrn Parting mixed Tempests in lategame to gain positional advantage on the ghosts. In PvZ broodlords simply don't exist because of the power of Tempests.

On August 03 2013 10:51 Aiobhill wrote:


Tempests have a rate of fire like 17th century siege weapons and are negated by pdd, which makes them completely worthless in PvT. And I'd list negating Broodlords as a con, they just remove an option from the zerg arsenal almost completely. In summary, they are a failed design outside of PvP.

On August 03 2013 11:35 Terrasmith wrote:


The real problem with Tempests in PvT is there isn't much for them to hit unless the Terran goes BCs. They can try to snipe medivacs or vikings, but MMM doesn't have expensive units like colossi or brood lords to snipe off. Ravens get countered so hard by HTs that mass marine is a better counter to tempests. See Innovation vs sOs game 4.

On August 03 2013 12:11 Wingblade wrote:


Your confused. I'm not talking about a mass tempest/HT play ala sOs vs. Innovation. Im talking late game adding in a few to give yourself positional advantage and killing off ghosts foolish enough to approach with a high enough observer count as well. Ravens are just so incredibly hard countered by HT it wouldn't be the best play to use them against Protoss.