|
On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out
If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous.
In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics.
|
On August 07 2013 20:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:On August 07 2013 19:43 Big J wrote:On August 07 2013 19:32 saddaromma wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. This is a very good post. I knew something was wrong in SC2's core, but I never thought of this. What if we remove chornoboost, larvainject and mules from the game? Its easily doable on a custom map. Zerg would not be competitive anymore, because they would produce less drones per hatchery than a Terran produces with a single CC. It's a very shitty idea because it is impossible to balance this kind of stuff now and because the production boosts are assymetric. Larva injects make 60% of zergs production, mules make only 20% of a Terrans mineral income and chronoboost is on average a 40% production boost on a single building, probably not even making for 10% of Protoss production. You'd have to at least remove reactors and warp gate as well (as Rabiator writes) and even then you will be lightyears away from anything balanced, because reactors are much more of a BO-thing and can be replaced (at least in bio builds) with extra barracks (which cost roughly the same). Not even going to mention what happens when a Terran 11/11 allins a zerg and has more marine+scv production than the zerg has zergling production of 2 plain hatcheries. Hatchery produces more drones than CC. And what about macro hatch? Mule brings 350 minerals, which means additional 700 minerals per minute from each CC. Its quite a loss for terran if we remove mules. Less baracks, less marines, late third CC. Its very debatable which one is the strongest mecanic, but they all are similarly good. Economy and tech will be slowed a lot and map distance will become huge factor. I think we might see more macro oriented games. Cost efficient units such as tanks and immortals will become more important since player's can't just spam mass disposable units. A hatchery produces 4 larva per minute, a CC produces 3.53 workers per minute. Now those 4 larva can go at maximum into 3.5drones and 0.5overlords per minute if a zerg only produces drones and overlords. If a zerg builds any building or any combat unit aside from queens the Terran will just outproduce the Zerg in workers. Similarily you can do the math on 2barracks (300mineral investment) vs 1hatchery (350mineral investment) for army production. The 2raxes produce 4.8marines per minute, the hatchery produces 3.5 x2 = 7 zerglings + 0.5overlords per minute. The game would be insanely broken especially early on.
this doesnt account for aynthing in the long run imo
2barracks = 300minerals + scv mining time lost x 2
A zerg on two bases without inject would have 4hatcheries easy
And those hatcheires can be used for any unit aslong as you have that particular building
So your match is really simplified, and with zerglings. Banelings can be made and a baneling cost no additional larva for example
And earlygame, roach building, now instead of 2lings per larva u make 1roach
and a static defence, naaah far from your descrpitino
|
On August 07 2013 20:56 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 20:24 Big J wrote:On August 07 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:On August 07 2013 19:43 Big J wrote:On August 07 2013 19:32 saddaromma wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. This is a very good post. I knew something was wrong in SC2's core, but I never thought of this. What if we remove chornoboost, larvainject and mules from the game? Its easily doable on a custom map. Zerg would not be competitive anymore, because they would produce less drones per hatchery than a Terran produces with a single CC. It's a very shitty idea because it is impossible to balance this kind of stuff now and because the production boosts are assymetric. Larva injects make 60% of zergs production, mules make only 20% of a Terrans mineral income and chronoboost is on average a 40% production boost on a single building, probably not even making for 10% of Protoss production. You'd have to at least remove reactors and warp gate as well (as Rabiator writes) and even then you will be lightyears away from anything balanced, because reactors are much more of a BO-thing and can be replaced (at least in bio builds) with extra barracks (which cost roughly the same). Not even going to mention what happens when a Terran 11/11 allins a zerg and has more marine+scv production than the zerg has zergling production of 2 plain hatcheries. Hatchery produces more drones than CC. And what about macro hatch? Mule brings 350 minerals, which means additional 700 minerals per minute from each CC. Its quite a loss for terran if we remove mules. Less baracks, less marines, late third CC. Its very debatable which one is the strongest mecanic, but they all are similarly good. Economy and tech will be slowed a lot and map distance will become huge factor. I think we might see more macro oriented games. Cost efficient units such as tanks and immortals will become more important since player's can't just spam mass disposable units. A hatchery produces 4 larva per minute, a CC produces 3.53 workers per minute. Now those 4 larva can go at maximum into 3.5drones and 0.5overlords per minute if a zerg only produces drones and overlords. If a zerg builds any building or any combat unit aside from queens the Terran will just outproduce the Zerg in workers. Similarily you can do the math on 2barracks (300mineral investment) vs 1hatchery (350mineral investment) for army production. The 2raxes produce 4.8marines per minute, the hatchery produces 3.5 x2 = 7 zerglings + 0.5overlords per minute. The game would be insanely broken especially early on. this doesnt account for aynthing in the long run imo 2barracks = 300minerals + scv mining time lost x 2 A zerg on two bases without inject would have 4hatcheries easy And those hatcheires can be used for any unit aslong as you have that particular building So your match is really simplified, and with zerglings. Banelings can be made and a baneling cost no additional larva for example And earlygame, roach building, now instead of 2lings per larva u make 1roach and a static defence, naaah far from your descrpitino
static defence doesn't cost larva?
|
On August 07 2013 17:54 ETisME wrote:
Protoss is taking a huge risk in doing proxy stargate, it would be unreasonable if it didn't do any damage to a CC first build.
whether the damage was too high is just subjective and this is a nice counter build to a CC first also should be taken into consideration.
Proxy Stargate isn't a huge risk at all, there is zero way to punish it since the Oracle, on top of being able to instantly win the game on its own, grants a free scout of Terran's base and detection anyway; not to mention the early EB and 2-3 Turrets significantly hinder Terran's build order anyway, so against most builds you're guaranteed a high amount of indirect damage.
On August 07 2013 19:14 ETisME wrote:
I will never understand the mindset of Naruto and thedwf
Just drop a nexus and you will not be behind?
Losing 20drones don't matter because it just takes one round of drone cycle?
aren't you guys completely forgetting the game time is a relative one?
I thought by now at least terran players know that a fail high risk strategy like proxy 2 rax if failed, even when dropping 2 ccs right away doesn't mean you are even, you are vulnerable to certain timings.
(unless you consider roach ling baneling is not an all in of cause)
I also don't understand why terran wants to punish asc expand, it's not as greedy as other fast expand options.
It's not like zerg can punish the terran for going fast in base 3rd cc or toss ffe without going all in as well.
Yes, "just drop a Nexus": I have already talked about this here or there.
I don't want to "punish MSC expand," I want to have a chance at dealing heavy damage against absurd transitions such as 5'45 dual forge or teching a DT drop behind 3 units, i. e. stuff which should be beyond risky yet is now totally safe against most forms of pressure because of one stupid button. I want to have my midgame initiative back instead of spending half my games chasing DTs/Zealots in my bases while Protoss techs his dual AoE tech army in complete impunity.
Try to play Terran at high level and trust me, you'll have zero trouble understanding our point of view.
|
That's going to be my last respond on this stupid discussion about things that will never happen, are utterly imbalanced - even if in a different way than we might expect, but it is going to be broken because we would have to figure out the game from 0 again but with different production. this won't just magically turn out balanced just because every race loses something - and would completely destroy the game as we know it.
2barracks = 300minerals + scv mining time lost x 2
I already said that this costs 300minerals, make it 350 if you want, I don't care. You'd still have to calculate a lot of other things like spawning pool into this.
A zerg on two bases without inject would have 4hatcheries easy
how? 4hatcheries means you have to build another 3, which is 1050 in ressources. Compared to 650 you have to invest into a second hatchery and 2queens, and you'd still have only 16larva per minute compared to the 20 you get from 2base+2queens. And you wouldn't have the defensive capabilities of the queens which you would have to replace somehow as well.
Ergo, you can't just replace queens with more hatcheries (and the whole point of those macro nerfs is that it is not possible to have same production capability afterwards). You'd be hardpressed to come up with a build that features 3hatches and is safe and somewhat economical.
And those hatcheires can be used for any unit aslong as you have that particular building
So your match is really simplified, and with zerglings. Banelings can be made and a baneling cost no additional larva for example
And earlygame, roach building, now instead of 2lings per larva u make 1roach
and a static defence, naaah far from your descrpitino
yes, because I was talking about a 2rax rush (which is very independend of mules for as long as you don't pull scvs). Go ahead, defend a 2rax rush without injects. It's not possible, you will have only half the amount of troops, the terran cripple in that scenario without mules will be that he won't be able to follow the rush up with 1-2CCs as easily (due to lacking the income for troops+scvs+CCs), which doesn't matter as the rush will be successful.
But go ahead. Make that map (it's a question of 5mins to remove the buttons from the units, so you can't use their abilities). Play against some useful Terran opponents and show us those magical BOs in which you will come up with a roach warren to defend 2raxes, something that isn't being done with the current Zerg WITH injects.
|
On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics.
So you are saying
- having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and
- a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building,
does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?!
*Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm*
|
These discussions are turning into what BW was.... Terran is easier against Zerg than it is Protoss. Zerg is easier against Protoss than it is Terran. Protoss is pretty equal across the board maybe slightly harder against Zerg than it is against Terran.
Which there was some balance complain but hopefully LotV protoss gets some bum end of the stick with new units LOL Right now the Oracle and MSC is dominating all match ups
|
On August 07 2013 21:52 Pirfiktshon wrote:
These discussions are turning into what BW was.... Terran is easier against Zerg than it is Protoss. Zerg is easier against Protoss than it is Terran. Protoss is pretty equal across the board maybe slightly harder against Zerg than it is against Terran.
Which there was some balance complain but hopefully LotV protoss gets some bum end of the stick with new units LOL Right now the Oracle and MSC is dominating all match ups
Wow, if you call the Oracle dominating all matchups, you may wanna check out marines, roaches, zerglings, marauders, medivacs. 
|
|
|
On August 07 2013 21:54 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 20:58 TheDwf wrote:On August 07 2013 17:54 ETisME wrote:
Protoss is taking a huge risk in doing proxy stargate, it would be unreasonable if it didn't do any damage to a CC first build.
whether the damage was too high is just subjective and this is a nice counter build to a CC first also should be taken into consideration. Proxy Stargate isn't a huge risk at all, there is zero way to punish it since the Oracle, on top of being able to instantly win the game on its own, grants a free scout of Terran's base and detection anyway; not to mention the early EB and 2-3 Turrets significantly hinder Terran's build order anyway, so against most builds you're guaranteed a high amount of indirect damage. On August 07 2013 19:14 ETisME wrote:
I will never understand the mindset of Naruto and thedwf
Just drop a nexus and you will not be behind?
Losing 20drones don't matter because it just takes one round of drone cycle?
aren't you guys completely forgetting the game time is a relative one?
I thought by now at least terran players know that a fail high risk strategy like proxy 2 rax if failed, even when dropping 2 ccs right away doesn't mean you are even, you are vulnerable to certain timings.
(unless you consider roach ling baneling is not an all in of cause)
I also don't understand why terran wants to punish asc expand, it's not as greedy as other fast expand options.
It's not like zerg can punish the terran for going fast in base 3rd cc or toss ffe without going all in as well. Yes, "just drop a Nexus": I have already talked about this here or there. I don't want to "punish MSC expand," I want to have a chance at dealing heavy damage against absurd transitions such as 5'45 dual forge or teching a DT drop behind 3 units, i. e. stuff which should be beyond risky yet is now totally safe against most forms of pressure because of one stupid button. I want to have my midgame initiative back instead of spending half my games chasing DTs/Zealots in my bases while Protoss techs his dual AoE tech army in complete impunity. Try to play Terran at high level and trust me, you'll have zero trouble understanding our point of view. Still sitting at 30% vs. Terran at mid/high Masters. I have lots of trouble understanding your point of view. Maybe, just maybe, you're simply bad at vs. Protoss..?
Are you sure you are sitting at 30% because I don't believe you do. Secondly, are you potentially excelling at PvZ and PvP and get higher-level Terrans that are above your level in the match up? Other than that, I really feel your PvT has critical mistakes to have such a winning percentage.
TheDwf playes vs MC, won oGsVINES etc. I see his TvP everyday, its not 'simply bad'.
|
On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm*
That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more.
You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw.
Also might want to point out where I said the queen was bad while you're at it, and while your pondering those mysteries think about the supply cap, and why zergs get so many more drones then terran/protoss get scvs and then try to reason with yourself as to why having a huge amount of queens is a drawback. Something that terran/protoss really don't have. Not that I'm complaining, I understand that different races are different, but having a huge amount of larva only really kicks in if you're terrible at producing as your wealth accumulates, or if you've been slowly building up a mineral bank for a 50 muta switch, which admittedly is stupid.
|
|
|
How do you differentiate a person that is bad in TvP, because the person is bad at TvP from a person that is bad in TvP, because Terran lacks the chance and options to be equally matched in TvP? To me it seems, every Protoss player tells me that he is simply good in PvT, while most of Terrans say they are lacking TvP.
So what is it? Is simply every Terran not-good in TvP, or maybe do we need to look into the match up, because I can tell you where I saw it before. ZvT Broodlord/Infestor - age.
|
On August 07 2013 21:57 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm* That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more. You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw.
Then explain yourself rather than vague remarks of "at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more."
We all know it's called "stockpiling for a tech switch"?
The same for Protoss, except they have another edge of "Powering through the tech tree" in addition to "stockpiling for a tech switch"
Ergo, according to you, a Protoss reaching 3/3/0 faster than their opponent means that chronoboost has stopped being good. a Zerg who has reached 19 larvae per hatchery means spawn larvae has stopped being so good, whereas a Terran can keep getting minerals via summoning a 0 dps unit for 60s.
*sigh*
|
|
|
On August 07 2013 22:19 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 21:57 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm* That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more. You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw. Then explain yourself rather than vague remarks of "at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more." We all know it's called "stockpiling for a tech switch"? The same for Protoss, except they have another edge of "Powering through the tech tree" in addition to "stockpiling for a tech switch" Ergo, according to you, a Protoss reaching 3/3/0 faster than their opponent means that chronoboost has stopped being good. a Zerg who has reached 19 larvae per hatchery means spawn larvae has stopped being so good, whereas a Terran can keep getting minerals via summoning a 0 dps unit for 60s. *sigh*
Do you know what something means to scale? Having 3/3 finish 50 seconds earlier, or even 10 minutes earlier isn't scaling better, having larva available to tech switch isn't scaling better. Having more and more and more and more income which can keep going up so long as there are mineral patches on the map, is scaling better. I'm not saying ones better or worse, I'm saying two are a hell of a lot more front loaded then the other.
|
On August 07 2013 22:23 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 22:19 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 21:57 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:05 newbee123 wrote:
Game balance is seriously impaired in Z vs T
After 7/12, Z vs T winning percentage is 3 out of 14 games.(WCS KR)
It's around 20%. Too small sample size for a decent statistic. - only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT) - maps do have an influence on the games - tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ... Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm* That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more. You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw. Then explain yourself rather than vague remarks of "at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more." We all know it's called "stockpiling for a tech switch"? The same for Protoss, except they have another edge of "Powering through the tech tree" in addition to "stockpiling for a tech switch" Ergo, according to you, a Protoss reaching 3/3/0 faster than their opponent means that chronoboost has stopped being good. a Zerg who has reached 19 larvae per hatchery means spawn larvae has stopped being so good, whereas a Terran can keep getting minerals via summoning a 0 dps unit for 60s. *sigh* Do you know what something means to scale? Having 3/3 finish 50 seconds earlier, or even 10 minutes earlier isn't scaling better, having larva available to tech switch isn't scaling better. Having more and more and more and more income which can keep going up so long as there are mineral patches on the map, is scaling better. I'm not saying ones better or worse, I'm saying two are a hell of a lot more front loaded then the other.
You are only looking at the income level, completely ignoring that this is STARCRAFT.
Victory is to the guy who breaks all the other guy's stuff.
Which again, boils down to why people who say "Terran imba because MULES" are childish.
MULES are the flashiest of the three base boosters. Compared to blue swirl of the Chronoboost and the queen spit spray of Spawn Larvae, orbital rockets coming down revealing "super" harvesters that can saturate an entire mineral line followed by the caster comment of, "OMG Terran so broken!" meanwhile ignoring the stockpiling of larvae for a tech switch to mass ling/ultra on four bases while ling/bling/muta stocks the battlefield.
|
On August 07 2013 22:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 22:23 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 22:19 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 21:57 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 17:20 Rabiator wrote:
[quote]
Too small sample size for a decent statistic.
- only a handful of players (and they might suck in ZvT)
- maps do have an influence on the games
- tournament style (and preparation) have an influence on the game
Thus I would advise you to try to base your opinion on a sample size of at least 500 games instead of just 20 ... with lots of different players and maps and tournament styles. Matches where a player has prepared for a specific opponent are rather terrible for "game balance statistics", because that adds a "personality factor" to the whole racial balance which is not the fault of the game and its mechanics. If one player refuses to do X and another player abuses that and wins it seriously screws the statistics ...
Sadly I dont think people will listen to this, because they are too bent on hero worshipping and "my favorite player is better than your favorite player"-whining ... and "high end tournament result"-jerking-off". Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database. It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup. This will give very clear picture of balance, for example: - Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair? Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended? Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc? So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm* That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more. You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw. Then explain yourself rather than vague remarks of "at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more." We all know it's called "stockpiling for a tech switch"? The same for Protoss, except they have another edge of "Powering through the tech tree" in addition to "stockpiling for a tech switch" Ergo, according to you, a Protoss reaching 3/3/0 faster than their opponent means that chronoboost has stopped being good. a Zerg who has reached 19 larvae per hatchery means spawn larvae has stopped being so good, whereas a Terran can keep getting minerals via summoning a 0 dps unit for 60s. *sigh* Do you know what something means to scale? Having 3/3 finish 50 seconds earlier, or even 10 minutes earlier isn't scaling better, having larva available to tech switch isn't scaling better. Having more and more and more and more income which can keep going up so long as there are mineral patches on the map, is scaling better. I'm not saying ones better or worse, I'm saying two are a hell of a lot more front loaded then the other. You are only looking at the income level, completely ignoring that this is STARCRAFT. Victory is to the guy who breaks all the other guy's stuff. Which again, boils down to why people who say "Terran imba because MULES" are childish. MULES are the flashiest of the three base boosters. Compared to blue swirl of the Chronoboost and the queen spit spray of Spawn Larvae, orbital rockets coming down revealing "super" harvesters that can saturate an entire mineral line followed by the caster comment of, "OMG Terran so broken!" meanwhile ignoring the stockpiling of larvae for a tech switch to mass ling/ultra on four bases while ling/bling/muta stocks the battlefield.
A lot going on in this chain of quotes. One thing I will say is that the production and economy boosts in the game favor basic and quick producing units way to much and I think that is why roach, ling, zealot, marines are disproportionally used beyond what typical tier 1 use should be. The synergy between larva injects and massing cheap units, warp in plus chrono on gates, and reactors plus mules... It all seems to encourage a game where at the end of the day we just see the same basic armies running into each other. Why would Terran go mech when you can produce marines/medivacs so much faster? Why not make 20 gateways late game and just do constant zealot runbys? Lose entire army but have 100 larva saved? Make 200 lings.
I think the game would be soooo much better if there was no inject, no warp gate, and no reactors. Obviously you would have to tweak some things like make gateway units stronger and have hatches produce larva faster but I think those things made this game less fun to watch, and play. It devalues tier 2/3 units. Just my thoughts.
|
On August 07 2013 22:53 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 22:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 22:23 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 22:19 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 21:57 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 21:46 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 20:44 bo1b wrote:On August 07 2013 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 07 2013 18:55 Rabiator wrote:On August 07 2013 17:40 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
[quote]
Actually as a business professional that relies on statistics even what you are saying is not sufficiently stringent to build a statistical database.
It should have 500 games per player per response (3CC opening vs 1 base SG opening for example) per matchup.
This will give very clear picture of balance, for example:
- Is proxy double rax into 4x reaper balanced vs. double expand into spawning pool fair?
Should the Terran win outright, favored or par? Should the Terran be behind if defended?
Should timings be adjusted, spawning pool be faster, ling production, movement speed, etc?
So yes, all this, OMG WMs are imba, X beat Y because Y got baited into the mine field, is kids complaining about a world they don't understand. There is a reason why RTS take forever to come out, balance is one of those reasons. Lately no one in their right mind is developing one for this very reason, balance can make or break a game's sales. Personally I think that the Blizzard devs have shot themselves in the foot by making a game that is "super fast" and with a "high economy and production". This adds a factor to the racial balance which is hard to grasp and hard to balance: UNIT REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY (which also includes racially specific economy boosts). There have been lots of people complaining about Terrans only going bio, but one of the major factors in that is that you simply cant reproduce Siege Tanks as fast as a Zerg or Protoss (or even a Terran bio player) can get their stuff back. The best way to go about it would be to reduce the impact of production as much as possible, because your actual units would become more important and the ability to reproduce them after you "threw them away" becomes less important. Too bad the kiddies here and on the BNet forum havent grasped that concept yet. Lots of people have complained about the MULE and yet people dont understand the impact it has on the whole game. If the MULE is nerfed or removed every other economy boost needs to go too ... and due to the "crossover nature" of Inject Larvae and Chronoboost the production speed boosts need to go as well. People will whine that they wont play or watch a game without these mechanics, but that is only a personal opinion and everyone could get used to SC2 games where you dont get to 200 supply at 10-15 minutes (or whenever that happens) but instead never truly reach that. Designing an RTS is actually pretty easy, but designing an aysymmetric one is hard. Games like Total War have strategic battles and yet they are fairly easy to design because cultural differences only offer a small benefit to some stat and in general the units are identical. The same is true for the culturally specific units in Civ V. An RTS with really asymmetric races is more interesting from an eSports perspective though and I would assume that is what you meant. The "symmetric" nature of games like TA or Supreme Commander makes them less interesting to watch compared to Starcraft and from my perspective I would also add the constant production as a rather boring factor. Exactly. It was an executive decision (Dustin) to build Terran around the bio instead of the combined arms doctrine of both present modern armies around the world and BW. Yes, the MULE is in reality the LEAST IMBA of the economic boosters. A Zerg can have up to 300% boost in unit and building construction via Spawn Larvae spell, Protoss can have 20% more units in the same time and 20% faster research in the same time via Chronoboost spell. The tragic part which IMHO qualifies them as kids is that The Casters Point the MULES out If you can't see why mules don't get more attention then the others... In any event, talking about chronoboost as if its some sort of permanent 20% boost is lolzish, the spawn larvae ability is only really more useful then terran until a certain amount of hatcheries are made, and the income is less then the amount of larvae produced - something that happens really quickly. Mules on the other hand, continue to scale endlessly, they allow you to make strategic decisions regarding how many scvs you want to have, they generate income effectively for free which allows ludicrous comebacks and prevents harassing the terran economy as a serious way to end the game, and the income they can provide when you start getting more oc's is frankly ridiculous. In a grossly simplified statement: Spawn larvae and chrono boost allow you to get more units out early, while mules merely make up for having less mining early game, and then allow terran to rapidly out produce their opponents late game, assuming they have the mechanics. So you are saying - having +4 extra larvae every 40s which can be produce ANYTHING with supporting tech by a 175 hp unit with 8 dps AND able to load up to NINETEEN (19) larvae per hatchery, or 76 larvae on four bases, and - a flat 50% boost (liquipedia verified) to ANY research or ANY production with supporting tech by 2000 hp building, does not scale as well as a 240/270 mineral harvesting unit of 60s time duration?! *Picard & Lt. Riker synchronized face palm* That's not what I said, but feel free to take it that way. And in any event, no it doesn't scale as well. When a zerg gets to 2000 minerals per minute, at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more. You might want to think about why chrono boost quickly drops off from being so good btw. Then explain yourself rather than vague remarks of "at a certain point in the game having infinite larva production really doesn't matter all that much any more." We all know it's called "stockpiling for a tech switch"? The same for Protoss, except they have another edge of "Powering through the tech tree" in addition to "stockpiling for a tech switch" Ergo, according to you, a Protoss reaching 3/3/0 faster than their opponent means that chronoboost has stopped being good. a Zerg who has reached 19 larvae per hatchery means spawn larvae has stopped being so good, whereas a Terran can keep getting minerals via summoning a 0 dps unit for 60s. *sigh* Do you know what something means to scale? Having 3/3 finish 50 seconds earlier, or even 10 minutes earlier isn't scaling better, having larva available to tech switch isn't scaling better. Having more and more and more and more income which can keep going up so long as there are mineral patches on the map, is scaling better. I'm not saying ones better or worse, I'm saying two are a hell of a lot more front loaded then the other. You are only looking at the income level, completely ignoring that this is STARCRAFT. Victory is to the guy who breaks all the other guy's stuff. Which again, boils down to why people who say "Terran imba because MULES" are childish. MULES are the flashiest of the three base boosters. Compared to blue swirl of the Chronoboost and the queen spit spray of Spawn Larvae, orbital rockets coming down revealing "super" harvesters that can saturate an entire mineral line followed by the caster comment of, "OMG Terran so broken!" meanwhile ignoring the stockpiling of larvae for a tech switch to mass ling/ultra on four bases while ling/bling/muta stocks the battlefield. A lot going on in this chain of quotes. One thing I will say is that the production and economy boosts in the game favor basic and quick producing units way to much and I think that is why roach, ling, zealot, marines are disproportionally used beyond what typical tier 1 use should be. The synergy between larva injects and massing cheap units, warp in plus chrono on gates, and reactors plus mules... It all seems to encourage a game where at the end of the day we just see the same basic armies running into each other. Why would Terran go mech when you can produce marines/medivacs so much faster? Why not make 20 gateways late game and just do constant zealot runbys? Lose entire army but have 100 larva saved? Make 200 lings. I think the game would be soooo much better if there was no inject, no warp gate, and no reactors. Obviously you would have to tweak some things like make gateway units stronger and have hatches produce larva faster but I think those things made this game less fun to watch, and play. It devalues tier 2/3 units. Just my thoughts.
That's not quite true, the game has obviously been designed and balanced with this in mind. It can be seen in the production time of high tech units which is only slightly more compared to how long it takes to queue basic units.
Terran examples:
Siege Tank 150/125, 45
vs
Hellion 100/0, 30
So in the time you produce 2tanks, you only get 4hellions. The first one being the stronger "army" and the more costly army, meaning you have to build less production facilities to produce hightech units equally fast as you need to produce lowtech units.
Siege Tank 150/125, 45
vs
Marine 50/0, 25
In the time you produce 18marines from a reactored barracks, you can also produce 5tanks from a techlabed factory.
In terms of (using Terran as an example) that actually means that to spend your whole money on hightier units, you need LESS production facilities.
Lowtier vs hightier units is absolutly not a battle for production times, because the hightier units actually win that by a huge margin, even with reactors, warpgates and larva. Mech being worse than bio is completely the units fault, not the production's. (and if you hear those comments about Mech not being able to replace an army. Yes it is true. But that's not because of production time, but because of cost issues and how Mech is not costefficient in small numbers, which means you have to start from 0/100 supply after losing an army. While a bio army, or a zerg army can just be back on the map and pressure with only 10 supply)
|
On August 07 2013 21:54 Sated wrote:
Still sitting at 30% vs. Terran at mid/high Masters. I have lots of trouble understanding your point of view.
Maybe you're just bad vs. Protoss like I am vs. Terran? That you think the Mothership Core is so powerful confirms that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not that strong against well-planned pressure that - and this is the important part - comes from multiple angles.
EDIT:
When your argument sounds like the same argument Avilo uses, you're probably wrong.
On August 07 2013 22:06 Sated wrote:
I'm sure. I'm ~30/40/80 vs. T/P/Z.
I don't mean to say that his TvP is bad compared to other players, I mean to say that his TvP is worse than his TvZ and TvT. This would give the impression that Protoss is overpowered when it's more likely the case that TvP is simply his bad match-up. Nearly everyone has a bad match-up.
How many points and bonus pool do you have?
Weren't you still playing 1gR or 2gR expand at the end of WoL, when everyone was playing 1g exe into 3gR for years? It seems you always were a "overly safe" player, so of course you don't benefit from HotS' grotesque "safe greed" features if you stick to your conservative builds.
About me: first, my personal TvP is quite irrelevant. Every Terran and their mother could tell you the same thing, and I'm ready to bet most Terran pros will tell you something is painfully wrong with TvP. Second, nope, I'm not bad vs Protoss. My winrate vs Protoss is 1% superior to my overall winrate, so TvP is by no means a bad match-up for me. At any rate it was good enough to beat at least once the likes of StarDust, BabyKnight, BlinG, elfi, Grubby, TitaN, Verdi or VINES.
I'm GM for the 8th season in a row, you think your opponents know better than me how to execute a Marines/Hellions attack, forcing a PO at a base then going the other one? Do you want to know what happens when a Protoss scouts this and reacts accordingly? He takes little damage and you end up behind, or you even lose straight away to a simple stalk counter-attack: Rain vs Bomber, Bel'shir Vestige, OSL RO4. But maybe Bomber is just bad at TvP and doesn't know how to play while your midmasters Terran somehow know the secret better?...
If I am clueless about the MSC, others are as well I assume?
On August 01 2013 19:12 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:
Mothership core is main thing people are complaining about in Korea right now (Z+T); I don't think any Zergs really feel there's an issue with ZvT
I guess people are just bad at T/ZvP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
