|
On August 09 2013 01:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:59 Big J wrote:Don't take that as a balance comment, but your math is so wrong it just hurts anybody who has actually ever checked the numbers... On August 09 2013 00:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
The reality is due to Terran's base booster and it's AoE/burst damage nature, Terran can come back from behind AT ANY TIME on a three base and up scenario.
Terran's base boost is limited to spell detection and unit summoning, unlike the super production of Spawn larvae and production and research boost of Chronoboost. Hence MULES have mining because assuming unlimited mana, usually at 3+ bases, Protoss can already have 50% more probes by the time a Terran rebuilds his SCVs in this magical scenario where both players wipe out each other's workers and army at the same time. A Zerg is even more insane, assuming tr player has been faithfully spawning larvae the entire battle, he could literally replace all 60 workers lost in a single cycle of production across his 3x hatcheries. well, if we assume unlimited mana Terran has unlimited income with mules. Thankfully the assumption is wrong and Protoss chronoboosting probes as much as he can will only produce probes ~22% faster than a Terran (due to energy regeneration).  Chrono Boost MathTo Zerg: an injection cyle takes 40seconds and will spawn 4+2.66666 larva. So in a single cycle, a 3hatch zerg can reproduce 20drones (assuming it is reproduction and he does not need to spend larva on overlords). 40less than he "could literally replace" as you say. But yes, 12.94more than a Terran with 3CCs in the same time. Luckily 12 is exactly the number of workers 3mules make up to begin with.  Yes, thankfully, on three bases, a Terran has 3 SCVs out per cycle where a Protoss would have 4 mathematically speaking (rounded up) and a Zerg would have all 60 up assuming he has been STOCKPILING larvae, since the start of the big fight, producing 12 larvae every passing 40s. In 2 minutes of engagement, having 36 larvae to immediately replace his lost workers. Math: 60 sec x 2 min = 120sec 120s / 40s = 3 casts 3 casts x 3 bases x 4 larvae= 36 larvae
I am confused
What kind of engagement ends with zerg stockpiling larvae to build drones? By that same token, a terran can immediately have an even superior economy with 3 full energy OC's. Which is a dumb argument, because who even does that? Your arguments are not based in reality, or anything even close to resembling it.
|
On August 09 2013 01:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 09 2013 00:59 Big J wrote:Don't take that as a balance comment, but your math is so wrong it just hurts anybody who has actually ever checked the numbers... On August 09 2013 00:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
The reality is due to Terran's base booster and it's AoE/burst damage nature, Terran can come back from behind AT ANY TIME on a three base and up scenario.
Terran's base boost is limited to spell detection and unit summoning, unlike the super production of Spawn larvae and production and research boost of Chronoboost. Hence MULES have mining because assuming unlimited mana, usually at 3+ bases, Protoss can already have 50% more probes by the time a Terran rebuilds his SCVs in this magical scenario where both players wipe out each other's workers and army at the same time. A Zerg is even more insane, assuming tr player has been faithfully spawning larvae the entire battle, he could literally replace all 60 workers lost in a single cycle of production across his 3x hatcheries. well, if we assume unlimited mana Terran has unlimited income with mules. Thankfully the assumption is wrong and Protoss chronoboosting probes as much as he can will only produce probes ~22% faster than a Terran (due to energy regeneration). Chrono Boost MathTo Zerg: an injection cyle takes 40seconds and will spawn 4+2.66666 larva. So in a single cycle, a 3hatch zerg can reproduce 20drones (assuming it is reproduction and he does not need to spend larva on overlords). 40less than he "could literally replace" as you say. But yes, 12.94more than a Terran with 3CCs in the same time. Luckily 12 is exactly the number of workers 3mules make up to begin with. Yes, thankfully, on three bases, a Terran has 3 SCVs out per cycle where a Protoss would have 4 mathematically speaking (rounded up) and a Zerg would have all 60 up assuming he has been STOCKPILING larvae, since the start of the big fight, producing 12 larvae every passing 40s. In 2 minutes of engagement, having 36 larvae to immediately replace his lost workers. Math: 60 sec x 2 min = 120sec 120s / 40s = 3 casts 3 casts x 3 bases x 4 larvae= 36 larvae I am confused What kind of engagement ends with zerg stockpiling larvae to build drones? By that same token, a terran can immediately have an even superior economy with 3 full energy OC's. Which is a dumb argument, because who even does that? Your arguments are not based in reality, or anything even close to resembling it.
Closer than you think... I pay close attention in casted TvZ games and in major battles, it is not uncommon to see OC energy stockpiling and missed spawn larvae cycles.
|
On August 09 2013 01:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 09 2013 01:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 09 2013 00:59 Big J wrote:Don't take that as a balance comment, but your math is so wrong it just hurts anybody who has actually ever checked the numbers... On August 09 2013 00:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
The reality is due to Terran's base booster and it's AoE/burst damage nature, Terran can come back from behind AT ANY TIME on a three base and up scenario.
Terran's base boost is limited to spell detection and unit summoning, unlike the super production of Spawn larvae and production and research boost of Chronoboost. Hence MULES have mining because assuming unlimited mana, usually at 3+ bases, Protoss can already have 50% more probes by the time a Terran rebuilds his SCVs in this magical scenario where both players wipe out each other's workers and army at the same time. A Zerg is even more insane, assuming tr player has been faithfully spawning larvae the entire battle, he could literally replace all 60 workers lost in a single cycle of production across his 3x hatcheries. well, if we assume unlimited mana Terran has unlimited income with mules. Thankfully the assumption is wrong and Protoss chronoboosting probes as much as he can will only produce probes ~22% faster than a Terran (due to energy regeneration). Chrono Boost MathTo Zerg: an injection cyle takes 40seconds and will spawn 4+2.66666 larva. So in a single cycle, a 3hatch zerg can reproduce 20drones (assuming it is reproduction and he does not need to spend larva on overlords). 40less than he "could literally replace" as you say. But yes, 12.94more than a Terran with 3CCs in the same time. Luckily 12 is exactly the number of workers 3mules make up to begin with. Yes, thankfully, on three bases, a Terran has 3 SCVs out per cycle where a Protoss would have 4 mathematically speaking (rounded up) and a Zerg would have all 60 up assuming he has been STOCKPILING larvae, since the start of the big fight, producing 12 larvae every passing 40s. In 2 minutes of engagement, having 36 larvae to immediately replace his lost workers. Math: 60 sec x 2 min = 120sec 120s / 40s = 3 casts 3 casts x 3 bases x 4 larvae= 36 larvae I am confused What kind of engagement ends with zerg stockpiling larvae to build drones? By that same token, a terran can immediately have an even superior economy with 3 full energy OC's. Which is a dumb argument, because who even does that? Your arguments are not based in reality, or anything even close to resembling it. Closer than you think... I pay close attention in casted TvZ games and in major battles, it is not uncommon to see OC energy stockpiling and missed spawn larvae cycles.
Terrans sometimes save energy for scans and such, as they dont need permanent mules. And how often does a battle happen and you refill with drones?
|
On August 09 2013 01:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:59 Big J wrote:Don't take that as a balance comment, but your math is so wrong it just hurts anybody who has actually ever checked the numbers... On August 09 2013 00:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
The reality is due to Terran's base booster and it's AoE/burst damage nature, Terran can come back from behind AT ANY TIME on a three base and up scenario.
Terran's base boost is limited to spell detection and unit summoning, unlike the super production of Spawn larvae and production and research boost of Chronoboost. Hence MULES have mining because assuming unlimited mana, usually at 3+ bases, Protoss can already have 50% more probes by the time a Terran rebuilds his SCVs in this magical scenario where both players wipe out each other's workers and army at the same time. A Zerg is even more insane, assuming tr player has been faithfully spawning larvae the entire battle, he could literally replace all 60 workers lost in a single cycle of production across his 3x hatcheries. well, if we assume unlimited mana Terran has unlimited income with mules. Thankfully the assumption is wrong and Protoss chronoboosting probes as much as he can will only produce probes ~22% faster than a Terran (due to energy regeneration). Chrono Boost MathTo Zerg: an injection cyle takes 40seconds and will spawn 4+2.66666 larva. So in a single cycle, a 3hatch zerg can reproduce 20drones (assuming it is reproduction and he does not need to spend larva on overlords). 40less than he "could literally replace" as you say. But yes, 12.94more than a Terran with 3CCs in the same time. Luckily 12 is exactly the number of workers 3mules make up to begin with. Yes, thankfully, on three bases, a Terran has 3 SCVs out per cycle where a Protoss would have 4 mathematically speaking (rounded up) and a Zerg would have all 60 up assuming he has been STOCKPILING larvae, since the start of the big fight, producing 12 larvae every passing 40s. In 2 minutes of engagement, having 36 larvae to immediately replace his lost workers. Math: 60 sec x 2 min = 120sec 120s / 40s = 3 casts 3 casts x 3 bases x 4 larvae= 36 larvae
Well, in 2mins a Terran 3base build will also (re)produce 50marines/5medivacs/6widow mines. Good luck holding that with your awesome stockpile larva on 3bases and then build 36drones (though it is a little bit more, but I let you figure this out yourself) strategy. And also, a 3base Terran can also build 20workers in 2mins, though he cannot do a stockpile-macromistake (but-let's-use-it-for-a-stupid-example-of-zerg-production-capability-argument).
|
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army.
|
On August 09 2013 01:48 Tyrhanius wrote:
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army.
You dont need 12 workers to mine from 1 asymilator, thus your calculations are invalid. Also you forget that higher mobility allows you to get more bases and income.
|
On August 09 2013 02:49 Thruth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:48 Tyrhanius wrote:
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army. You dont need 12 workers to mine from 1 asymilator, thus your calculations are invalid. Also you forget that higher mobility allows you to get more bases and income.
Not to mention the fact that Zerg gas units are superior to Terran gas units in the current TvZ meta.
/edit
To clarify, mech units are a joke at the top level. Too slow, too expensive, too long to make, too many hard counters.
|
On August 09 2013 01:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 09 2013 01:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 09 2013 00:59 Big J wrote:Don't take that as a balance comment, but your math is so wrong it just hurts anybody who has actually ever checked the numbers... On August 09 2013 00:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
The reality is due to Terran's base booster and it's AoE/burst damage nature, Terran can come back from behind AT ANY TIME on a three base and up scenario.
Terran's base boost is limited to spell detection and unit summoning, unlike the super production of Spawn larvae and production and research boost of Chronoboost. Hence MULES have mining because assuming unlimited mana, usually at 3+ bases, Protoss can already have 50% more probes by the time a Terran rebuilds his SCVs in this magical scenario where both players wipe out each other's workers and army at the same time. A Zerg is even more insane, assuming tr player has been faithfully spawning larvae the entire battle, he could literally replace all 60 workers lost in a single cycle of production across his 3x hatcheries. well, if we assume unlimited mana Terran has unlimited income with mules. Thankfully the assumption is wrong and Protoss chronoboosting probes as much as he can will only produce probes ~22% faster than a Terran (due to energy regeneration). Chrono Boost MathTo Zerg: an injection cyle takes 40seconds and will spawn 4+2.66666 larva. So in a single cycle, a 3hatch zerg can reproduce 20drones (assuming it is reproduction and he does not need to spend larva on overlords). 40less than he "could literally replace" as you say. But yes, 12.94more than a Terran with 3CCs in the same time. Luckily 12 is exactly the number of workers 3mules make up to begin with. Yes, thankfully, on three bases, a Terran has 3 SCVs out per cycle where a Protoss would have 4 mathematically speaking (rounded up) and a Zerg would have all 60 up assuming he has been STOCKPILING larvae, since the start of the big fight, producing 12 larvae every passing 40s. In 2 minutes of engagement, having 36 larvae to immediately replace his lost workers. Math: 60 sec x 2 min = 120sec 120s / 40s = 3 casts 3 casts x 3 bases x 4 larvae= 36 larvae I am confused What kind of engagement ends with zerg stockpiling larvae to build drones? By that same token, a terran can immediately have an even superior economy with 3 full energy OC's. Which is a dumb argument, because who even does that? Your arguments are not based in reality, or anything even close to resembling it. Closer than you think... I pay close attention in casted TvZ games and in major battles, it is not uncommon to see OC energy stockpiling and missed spawn larvae cycles.
Missed spawn larvae cycles is exactly why he WOULDN'T have all that larvae stockpiled. You have to keep on your bases and spawn larvae regularly to have the larvae. Building units behind it is the trivial part.
|
On August 09 2013 02:49 Thruth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:48 Tyrhanius wrote:
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army. You dont need 12 workers to mine from 1 asymilator, thus your calculations are invalid. Also you forget that higher mobility allows you to get more bases and income.
While I support your argumentation I think you can roughly count 1gas = 2 minerals.
It is completely right what you say that you can gather 4 times as much minerals than gas from one expansion (at the same time) but at the same time you need roughly only 50% as much gas as you need minerals. So the calculation roughly is 1gas *4 /2 = 2.
This is true for zerg, probably also for protoss or for protoss gas values even higher due to HT/Archon(roughly).
For Terran in TvZ the calculation would be different. Terran needs much less gas in TvZ.
As terran units neither have extraordinary high nor low mineral costs this calculation is not important for terran tho. You can just say terran needs no gas at all in TvZ as they always have enaugh gas for what they want to spend their minerals on after the very early stages have passed (gas = ubiquity for terrans). Therefore terran units in TvZ basically cost only minerals and no gas at all, even when medivacs e.g. cost 100 gas, its not a matter of terran thinking "where do I better spend the gas on on medivacs or another gas costy unit?". Terrans just look at the mineral counts and what to occupy their production cycles with (time) as a resource. Basically terran has been robbed one dimension of strategical ressource planning/decision making in TvZ as a matter of fact. This is one of the big design flaws that we are experiencing in TvZ now that of course has impact on balance.
The impact on balance is that the Z opponent cant cause damage on the terran when killing gas heavy units in the matter of pure gas costs. Losing a medivac costs the terran 100 minerals and the production time, not the gas, as he has enaugh gas to replenish as many medivacs as he ever wants to. Evidence for this is that in long games terrans don't even build refineries at base 4 and 5 and still have a big stock of gas unless they switch to mech/air/raven.
Another impact on balance is that killing/denying terrans 4th base doesnt damage the terran as much as it should as commonly agreed on. Because mules can temporarily be dropped at another running base and the gas of base 4 or 5 is absolutely not needed. On the other way round zerg strongly needs as much gas as possible and a 4th or 5th base being denied or destroyed has a big impact on zerg gameplay. Furthermore Z cant drop mules elsewhere and zerg does absolutely need the gas.
If this gas issue could be fixed alot will have been done for equalizing opportunities in this matchup.
And the way to fix it is to implement mech into TvZ metagame. The gas limits the amount of extra mech units that can be build. To implement mech blizzard needs to do 2 things:
1. create demand for mech
2. create use for mech
1. Demand for mech can be created when bio/mine stops roflstomping every zerg composition
2. Use for mech can be created when any (a few) zerg compositions stops roflstomping mech
Of course this would move TvZ away from this 1-dimensional metagame that it has right now and allow quite interesting compositions, tech switches on both sides. It would allow mixed armies bio/mech on the terran side and this would bring back alot of zerg units/abilities into the game as well. Also this would lead to more smoth air transitions for terrans. When writing all this I wonder how only few people can recognize how stupid this basically pure marine gameplay is. It doesnt even make sense to build future balance upon it if blizzard wants to get things right.
|
One thing I never see with these cost efficiency calculations is the race and phase of the game factored into it. Terran mineral cost is inflated, their mineral income dwarves other races on equal bases. Zerg mineral and gas cost are both inflated, because they take expansions quicker albeit less saturated. Protoss is mildly gas and mineral inflated because they take gas earlier and Chrono indirectly boosts both min and gas, albeit a lot tinier amounts than people think (20% increased Probe production =/= 20% more resources because of saturation and diminishing returns). So while min and gas are conventionally the resources we use to calculate things, technically time is the one common denominator that really dictates how much strategic "effort" is put into a composition. It solves the mineral-gas conversion, per base you can get X minerals per minute and Y gas per minute, so the time value coefficient of gas would be X over Y, meaning gas is X/Y more valuable than minerals. I realize that incorporating phase of the game math would make things a lot more complicated, so we'll probably just have to stick with unit tester and real life.
Edit: Since we're already digging deep into resource discussion, there's also resource dependence, like Terran bio mostly being mineral units, Protoss power units mostly gas, and Zerg probably switching throughout the game from mineral dependent early then into gas dependence. How that translates to the math, well Terran ends up losing out on opportunity time from all that wasted gas, Protoss ends up losing out on mineral efficiency because of their lackluster mineral dump, and Zerg end up the same as Protoss with usually excess minerals.
|
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units.
|
On August 09 2013 07:53 Big J wrote:
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units.
That's an interesting find. I wonder if it was intentional by Blizz to stop tanks siegeing a nexus out of P sight range?
|
Interesting. I never knew units had different sightrange. Now I understand why some of my zealots stand still when there is enemy closeby.
|
On August 09 2013 06:11 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 02:49 Thruth wrote:On August 09 2013 01:48 Tyrhanius wrote:
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army. You dont need 12 workers to mine from 1 asymilator, thus your calculations are invalid. Also you forget that higher mobility allows you to get more bases and income. While I support your argumentation I think you can roughly count 1gas = 2 minerals. It is completely right what you say that you can gather 4 times as much minerals than gas from one expansion (at the same time) but at the same time you need roughly only 50% as much gas as you need minerals. So the calculation roughly is 1gas *4 /2 = 2. This is true for zerg, probably also for protoss or for protoss gas values even higher due to HT/Archon(roughly). For Terran in TvZ the calculation would be different. Terran needs much less gas in TvZ. As terran units neither have extraordinary high nor low mineral costs this calculation is not important for terran tho. You can just say terran needs no gas at all in TvZ as they always have enaugh gas for what they want to spend their minerals on after the very early stages have passed (gas = ubiquity for terrans). Therefore terran units in TvZ basically cost only minerals and no gas at all, even when medivacs e.g. cost 100 gas, its not a matter of terran thinking "where do I better spend the gas on on medivacs or another gas costy unit?". Terrans just look at the mineral counts and what to occupy their production cycles with (time) as a resource. Basically terran has been robbed one dimension of strategical ressource planning/decision making in TvZ as a matter of fact. This is one of the big design flaws that we are experiencing in TvZ now that of course has impact on balance. The impact on balance is that the Z opponent cant cause damage on the terran when killing gas heavy units in the matter of pure gas costs. Losing a medivac costs the terran 100 minerals and the production time, not the gas, as he has enaugh gas to replenish as many medivacs as he ever wants to. Evidence for this is that in long games terrans don't even build refineries at base 4 and 5 and still have a big stock of gas unless they switch to mech/air/raven. Another impact on balance is that killing/denying terrans 4th base doesnt damage the terran as much as it should as commonly agreed on. Because mules can temporarily be dropped at another running base and the gas of base 4 or 5 is absolutely not needed. On the other way round zerg strongly needs as much gas as possible and a 4th or 5th base being denied or destroyed has a big impact on zerg gameplay. Furthermore Z cant drop mules elsewhere and zerg does absolutely need the gas. If this gas issue could be fixed alot will have been done for equalizing opportunities in this matchup. And the way to fix it is to implement mech into TvZ metagame. The gas limits the amount of extra mech units that can be build. To implement mech blizzard needs to do 2 things: 1. create demand for mech 2. create use for mech 1. Demand for mech can be created when bio/mine stops roflstomping every zerg composition 2. Use for mech can be created when any (a few) zerg compositions stops roflstomping mech Of course this would move TvZ away from this 1-dimensional metagame that it has right now and allow quite interesting compositions, tech switches on both sides. It would allow mixed armies bio/mech on the terran side and this would bring back alot of zerg units/abilities into the game as well. Also this would lead to more smoth air transitions for terrans. When writing all this I wonder how only few people can recognize how stupid this basically pure marine gameplay is. It doesnt even make sense to build future balance upon it if blizzard wants to get things right.
While I certainly agree with most of what you said, the bolded part I feel is still questionable. The only tech switch a terran can make is to start adding in ravens and BCs(which is more of a "I've won already").
I find it quite interesting though, how big of an issue the lack of gas requirement is for TvZ compared to TvP. TvP has always had abundance of gas after you've started +2/+2 and even though you add in ghosts in TvP that cost 100 gas, the fact they cost 200 minerals is a lot bigger issue. It has always frustrated me, especially in TvP how terran can do fuck-all with their gas compared to zerg and protoss. I mean I think terran is the coolest race in synergy, but I envy zerg and especially protoss though with their gas sinks, making their macro later into the game a lot more forgiving and interesting.
Edit: But yeah, they just need to change blinding cloud, so it doesn't remove the range of all units effected, but reduces it by 3-5(like people have suggested). Will bring tanks back into TvZ and make blinding cloud usuable vs more targets. Seeing as infestors were essentially killed(thank fuck for that stupid unit being gone) I feel vipers being zergs primary caster should have more of a core role in the game, especially ZvT. Currently it just pretty much hard counters mech and has it's uses in ZvP.
|
On August 09 2013 07:53 Big J wrote:
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units.
That is indeed an interesting find, however would this change all that much if they reduced it to say 11(which is the same ans an Ovie and more than appropriate me thinks)?
|
On August 09 2013 17:34 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 06:11 LSN wrote:On August 09 2013 02:49 Thruth wrote:On August 09 2013 01:48 Tyrhanius wrote:
Let's say 1 gaz = 4 mineral (because there's 4 times more mineral patch than gaz patch in a expansion).
To be cost effective :
2 zerglings need to kill 1 marine, so 40 zergling need to kill 20marines. With steam, the range, and medivac which heal it's never happened.
2 baneling need to kill 6 marines
1 Roach need to kill 3 marines
1 infestor need to kill 14 marines.
1 mutas need to kill 10 marines
1 SH need to kill 12 marines.
1 Ultralisk need to kill 22 marines.
1 broodlord need to kill 26 marines.
And this means if 1 ultra kill 22 marines, the thing are even for both player, so Zerg need to take >22 with his ultra to be ahead.
Add mines, hellbats, marauders :
Now just rewatch the fight where you thought Zerg has won, and see that most of the time Zerg lost more than Terran. Obviously Unit cost is not everything, supply army remaining, the ability to go in your opponent base is important too. But in a macro game, just consider how cost effective is the terran army. You dont need 12 workers to mine from 1 asymilator, thus your calculations are invalid. Also you forget that higher mobility allows you to get more bases and income. While I support your argumentation I think you can roughly count 1gas = 2 minerals. It is completely right what you say that you can gather 4 times as much minerals than gas from one expansion (at the same time) but at the same time you need roughly only 50% as much gas as you need minerals. So the calculation roughly is 1gas *4 /2 = 2. This is true for zerg, probably also for protoss or for protoss gas values even higher due to HT/Archon(roughly). For Terran in TvZ the calculation would be different. Terran needs much less gas in TvZ. As terran units neither have extraordinary high nor low mineral costs this calculation is not important for terran tho. You can just say terran needs no gas at all in TvZ as they always have enaugh gas for what they want to spend their minerals on after the very early stages have passed (gas = ubiquity for terrans). Therefore terran units in TvZ basically cost only minerals and no gas at all, even when medivacs e.g. cost 100 gas, its not a matter of terran thinking "where do I better spend the gas on on medivacs or another gas costy unit?". Terrans just look at the mineral counts and what to occupy their production cycles with (time) as a resource. Basically terran has been robbed one dimension of strategical ressource planning/decision making in TvZ as a matter of fact. This is one of the big design flaws that we are experiencing in TvZ now that of course has impact on balance. The impact on balance is that the Z opponent cant cause damage on the terran when killing gas heavy units in the matter of pure gas costs. Losing a medivac costs the terran 100 minerals and the production time, not the gas, as he has enaugh gas to replenish as many medivacs as he ever wants to. Evidence for this is that in long games terrans don't even build refineries at base 4 and 5 and still have a big stock of gas unless they switch to mech/air/raven. Another impact on balance is that killing/denying terrans 4th base doesnt damage the terran as much as it should as commonly agreed on. Because mules can temporarily be dropped at another running base and the gas of base 4 or 5 is absolutely not needed. On the other way round zerg strongly needs as much gas as possible and a 4th or 5th base being denied or destroyed has a big impact on zerg gameplay. Furthermore Z cant drop mules elsewhere and zerg does absolutely need the gas. If this gas issue could be fixed alot will have been done for equalizing opportunities in this matchup. And the way to fix it is to implement mech into TvZ metagame. The gas limits the amount of extra mech units that can be build. To implement mech blizzard needs to do 2 things: 1. create demand for mech 2. create use for mech 1. Demand for mech can be created when bio/mine stops roflstomping every zerg composition 2. Use for mech can be created when any (a few) zerg compositions stops roflstomping mech Of course this would move TvZ away from this 1-dimensional metagame that it has right now and allow quite interesting compositions, tech switches on both sides. It would allow mixed armies bio/mech on the terran side and this would bring back alot of zerg units/abilities into the game as well. Also this would lead to more smoth air transitions for terrans. When writing all this I wonder how only few people can recognize how stupid this basically pure marine gameplay is. It doesnt even make sense to build future balance upon it if blizzard wants to get things right. While I certainly agree with most of what you said, the bolded part I feel is still questionable. The only tech switch a terran can make is to start adding in ravens and BCs(which is more of a "I've won already"). I find it quite interesting though, how big of an issue the lack of gas requirement is for TvZ compared to TvP. TvP has always had abundance of gas after you've started +2/+2 and even though you add in ghosts in TvP that cost 100 gas, the fact they cost 200 minerals is a lot bigger issue. It has always frustrated me, especially in TvP how terran can do fuck-all with their gas compared to zerg and protoss. I mean I think terran is the coolest race in synergy, but I envy zerg and especially protoss though with their gas sinks, making their macro later into the game a lot more forgiving and interesting. Edit: But yeah, they just need to change blinding cloud, so it doesn't remove the range of all units effected, but reduces it by 3-5(like people have suggested). Will bring tanks back into TvZ and make blinding cloud usuable vs more targets. Seeing as infestors were essentially killed(thank fuck for that stupid unit being gone) I feel vipers being zergs primary caster should have more of a core role in the game, especially ZvT. Currently it just pretty much hard counters mech and has it's uses in ZvP.
Every potential endgame unit has an insane supply cost of 3 and above, AND significantly reduced in burst damage.
For example, the SC2 BC is a joke, BW BCs could one shot a marine AND with Defense Matrix take on between 12-24 stimmed marines before being seriously wounded.
|
On August 09 2013 07:53 Big J wrote:
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units.
It's 100% intentional. I don't know reasoning behind this, but i remember DK talking about MSC sight range, so they're definitely awere of that.
|
France252 Posts
But yeah, they just need to change blinding cloud, so it doesn't remove the range of all units effected, but reduces it by 3-5(like people have suggested). Will bring tanks back into TvZ
How would it bring back tanks int TvZ if all what you need right now to win is marine + mine?
The post you have quoted actually says the truth, and is full of very smart stuff like the need for both "demand" and "use" for mech. Your suggestion would fix the "use" part, but not the "demand" one as you do nothing to stop bio/mine being a staple to EVERY zerg composition.
|
On August 09 2013 17:45 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 07:53 Big J wrote:
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units. That is indeed an interesting find, however would this change all that much if they reduced it to say 11(which is the same ans an Ovie and more than appropriate me thinks)?
Once again, the crucial question concerns siege tanks. Vikings could pick off the msc, but as Vikings have sight 10 and range 9, the msc can be safely within nexus cannon range. And if vikings follow the msc into nexus range, they get shot (and a viking dies to a nexus cannon in under 9 in-game seconds, while a viking kills a msc in 14 seconds). With zero micro, you'd need to sack 2 vikings to snipe the msc core giving vision to the nexus cannon firing on the tanks.
|
On August 09 2013 17:53 TruEcz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 07:53 Big J wrote:
OK, I'm just watching WCS America and they switched to Alicia's view when he was scouting against Polt. Holy Moly, that sightrange of the MSC looked insane.
So I checked the numbers and I actually believe that this is an unintented mistake by blizzard: The mothership core has 14 sight range.
Other units in with equal or higher sight range? Mothership (14)
Next best sight range? BC, BL, Carrier (12)
Sightrange of noncapitalship air units: 10-11.
Seriously, I think blizzard simply forgot to adjust that value when creating the MSC (they probably just copied certain stats from the mothership early on). It should be 10 or 11. It's quite insane how much vision it gives and it makes absolutly no sense because it is completely out of line with the other "early" available air units. It's 100% intentional. I don't know reasoning behind this, but i remember DK talking about MSC sight range, so they're definitely awere of that.
ok. hm, don't quite get why, but maybe they do want it to be a very strong mapcontrol tool (which Protoss is lacking without it).
@Doublemint: I'm not sure it would change a lot. But there is certainly an advantage of seeing stuff while not getting seen yourself as we know from all those early Overlord scouts that turn around just in time to stay out of sightrange of buildings. Mostly I think it is just weird that they violate one of those "silent rules" for their units with the MSC sightrange.
On August 09 2013 17:34 Zarahtra wrote:
Edit: But yeah, they just need to change blinding cloud, so it doesn't remove the range of all units effected, but reduces it by 3-5(like people have suggested). Will bring tanks back into TvZ and make blinding cloud usuable vs more targets. Seeing as infestors were essentially killed(thank fuck for that stupid unit being gone) I feel vipers being zergs primary caster should have more of a core role in the game, especially ZvT. Currently it just pretty much hard counters mech and has it's uses in ZvP.
Just a small reminder for anybody who is interested in playing around with that kind of change and seeing what it would do, there is a Unit Test map with the adjusted Viper:
On August 08 2013 07:29 Big J wrote:If anybody is interested, I just published a custom Unit Tester (should be available on EU and AM servers) with the following change: Blinding CloudEnergy from 100-->125 Radius from 2-->3 Effect: Range -5 instead of complete reduction Mapname: Blinding Cloud Unit Tester by JayI advice you to test 20roaches+1viper against 6tanks, siege the tanks and amove. Then repeat with a blinding cloud, to see how useful the effect still is against tanks. Then play around with choke points (the unit tester allows for that) and look for how much space control a single BC allows now. Would love to hear some feedback. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
