Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 69

Chance55

United States55 Posts

September 06 2011 00:32 GMT

#1361

On September 06 2011 05:35 Rob28 wrote:

No offense, but terrible idea. Why not make injected larva morph SLOWER, or mules harvest LESS minerals while we're at it?

Warp-ins are a benefit to the protoss that gets balanced out by the benefits the other races also have unique to them. They shouldn't be nerfed in any way, unless you nerf all other races as well.

I think you are looking at it from a specific change to the current state of the game, whereas he is talking more about general game design philosophy.

What Rabiator is saying, and I completely agree with, is that from a game design standpoint, it would be more interesting if there were advantages and disadvantages to gateways and warpgates. Right now (AFAIK) the warpgate is better in every possible way. You can place your units anywhere you want (subject to powerfield) and get them instantly. Plus the cooldown is shorter.

I mean what's the point of even having a button to turn warpgates back into gateways? That seems to me almost like having a button to morph a lair back into a hatchery or something.

Imagine if back in alpha though they designed the game so that wargates had a significantly longer cooldown than the production time out of a gateway. Then there would be a level of tactics / strategy as players alternate their gates back in forth to find the balance of "faster production" and "warp-ins" that best works for their current situation.

Ovreel

United States206 Posts

September 06 2011 00:45 GMT

#1362

On September 06 2011 09:32 Chance55 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I feel there is somewhat of a tradeoff when it comes to warping in. With your standard production facilities, you can queue up a second set of units, as well as cancel units if you pick the wrong one on accident. Once you start warping in a protoss unit, there's no cancelling it, you're stuck with it (unless the pylon dies, or you switch the warp prism to transport mode). You also have to take your vision away from a battle to warp in (usually) rather than simply pressing your production hotkeys and queuing up a new set of units, which is why you sometimes see protoss float a lot of resource due to having to micro instead of warp in.

Don't get me wrong, it's great to be able to warp in anywhere with power, but there are some tradeoffs that you make. Overall, warping in is obviously better than leaving regular gateways out there. It wouldn't be an upgrade if it wasn't an improvement

sharktopus.

United States456 Posts

September 06 2011 00:59 GMT

#1363

On September 06 2011 07:26 Belial88 wrote:
As Idra said, Protoss are [playing] stupid. I'm not trying to flame here, but if you watch the GSL games (please, do a search of Nestea or Losira, and watch all the ZvPs in the last.... year. Nestea has had 3 ZvPs in the last 4 months, and all of the games are just embarassingly bad by P), P always does some goofy, gimmicky strat like stargate or DT, which can be stable and great, but Zerg just hard counters it too well (still taking a fast third, etc) and just comes out ahead. From there it's GG.

Oh well if Idra said it...

The stats are out for August, and those don't lie:
http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.png

Protoss is at a 46.9% winrate vs Terran and Zerg opponents. I find it hard to believe that the reason for this is because "Protoss are [playing] stupid."

Empirimancer

Canada1024 Posts

September 06 2011 01:03 GMT

#1364

Idra's ZvP hasn't caught up with the last 6 months of development.

Belial88

United States5217 Posts

September 06 2011 01:07 GMT

#1365

I can't help but think that you just got yourself into some shitty situation and didn't do anything fantastic to win. So you lost. And now your here.

I am a Terran player, but my Zerg friends all say Protoss ez pz.

Cool story bbbbbut what does this have to do with anything I said? And I'd say ZvP is my best match-up. But when a Protoss plays a very normal, straight macro game, and opens 3 gate expo instead of FFE (which I can easily take a super fast third, then hold their coinflip 2 base all in and always win unless im surprised - which can happen, but is pure chance and not often) or stargate/dt/4gate/5gate (gimmicky opening that I either scout and win, or dont scout and lose 50%), and then takes a fast third, and goes for stalker/colossi, and then HT+3rd base against infestors instead of doing some gimmicky composition like zealot/archon or mass blink stalker, I will always lose.

However, the number of games that Protoss does NOT open with stargate, DT, 4 gate, blink stalkers, or a 2 base all-in like 7 gate, 6 gate +1, mass blink stalkers, double stargate, is EXTREMELY rare. I would say that 'normal' stalker/colossi play on 2 base into 3 base, is less than 5% of my ZvPs.

I can go on for pages, about how wrong you are with those 2 sentences.
Thank you.

Please provide us with atleast 3 replays to prove that you know what you are talking about.
I am really interested in seing those games.

Any pro game where Protoss goes Stalker/Colossi on 2 base, and doesn't open something gimmicky like stargate in which Zerg responds to perfectly/easily and holds off (ie DTs and makes a single spore, stargate and takes super fast third and has good queen/spore setup). If Zerg goes roach/hydra, the games that Protoss doesn't die to hydra timing before 2+ colossi are out, and if Zerg goes infestors or baneling, the games that Protoss takes a third base and responds with HT tech when he sees infestors or banelings.

Yes, those games are very rare to occur. There is not a single ZvP with Nestea where Colossi come out in 2+, and the games that Colossi come out, Nestea is already inside the base, ripping it apart. There is not a single ZvP with Losira where Colossi exist. There are a few Colossi games with DRG and Sen, but in those games, the Zerg gets a super early fast third base and just wins with pure macro, because the Protoss opened something like stargate or DT, and it failed, and Zerg got a huge lead from that, and had already won the game.

There are plenty of games with Idra losing to simple macro, stalker/colossi games, but we can chalk it up to him using roach/hydra composition. After all, we all know ZvP was terribly imbalanced before the infestor buff, and Idra, for whatever reason, still uses roach/hydra. There are games of, I believe, Whitera vs Nerchio, and the series came down to "Does White-Ra have HT tech?" becuase, in the, I believe single game he lost, he didn't get HT tech, even though he saw the infestors already.

But how about this - find a single game where Protoss opens Nexus first (no forge), 1 gate Expand (Minigun does this a lot), 2 gate expand (dunno if anyone does that), or 3 gate expand, and then does not go mass gateway like 6 gate +1, does not go DT, does not go stargate, and does not do something silly like zealot/archon timing, but rather goes gateway/colossi and tries to get a third, and loses. Because it never happens.

It's not gimmicky, because it's not meant to kill the opponent, and everyone high-level knows it. Protoss SG/DT openings are meant to delay the Z 3rd and defend their 2nd. Otherwise, protoss has no way to defend against a Losira-style roach/ling 2 base all-in on maps with an exposed natural.

It is gimmicky. Either Zerg doesn't scout it, and Zerg handles it poorly, and loses, or Zerg does scout it, and GG. Single base DT/SG denying a third is not very useful, and FFE or fast expo DT/SG is meant to deny a third, but again, if Zerg reacts properly, they will get a fast third up and always be way ahead. It's an opening that, if scouted, will put Protoss far behind - often unwinnably far behind - and if not scouted, can do damage, but Zerg can still come out ahead.

infestors are off the chain atm with their ability to coutnher every unit in the game. while their harass rapes any type of expansion wtihout 5 cannons. idra makes some retarded statements such as "all protoss play bad" although hes not anywhere near as good as losira, nestea, or any of the KR zergs and no one should take his statements seriously.

i guess the grass is always greener though right?

Idra said All Protoss play stupid. There's a difference. The 'stupid' is Inca going DT everygame against Nestea. The 'stupid' is Anypro getting owned by ling runbys over and over after holding off a 6 pool from july. The 'stupid' is Hongun going stargate. While Stargate and DT can potentially do a lot of damage, it's just too easy for Zerg to come out way ahead against such openings and pretty much autowin from there. They are coinflip builds, when in reality Protoss can simply win with macro.

How many series have you seen, against say, Idra, or Sen, where game 1, Protoss does something like stargate or DT, and it fails, and Zerg wins, game 2, Protoss plays macro and rolls Zerg, and game 3, Protoss.... cheeses. And loses. Just see the Mana series for how good Protoss end-game is. Of course, roach/hydra is just bad, there's a reason infestors were buffed, but it just goes to show how amazingly strong P is, and that they don't need to rely on gimmicky builds and hope not to get scouted or blind countered.

And infestors hardly 'counter every unit in the game'. Every top Zerg knows ling/muta is a million times better in ZvT than ling/infestor, and since we're talking about Protoss anyways:

Mass blink stalker, zealot/archon, stargate based builds, get owned by infestors. Colossi get owned without support by ling/infestor. But stalker/colossi fares great against infestors, and eventually you'll need HT or you'll die - just like Terran will always die if they don't get ghosts or vikings in time against P. Not to mention that Carriers are cost effective against infestors given the inordinate price of infestors.

Infestors are just like HT. They leave zerg extremely vulnerable, and they actually cost more, take more time to tech to, and take longer to make. But why doesn't Protoss go for HT instead of Colossi every game? Because there's a huge window of vulnerability. But Hydras and mass roach is not an option against Protoss, so it's Zerg's only option (baneling rain is actually very good, but has certain vulnerabilities that infestors don't, and it's cost is arguably less efficient). But when HT do arrive for Protoss, the other player is fucking dead, unless they counter it in time (for Zerg, roaches, for T, mass units or ghosts).

I also hit Diamond with P, so I don't want to hear any 'grass is greener'.

Belial88

United States5217 Posts

September 06 2011 01:12 GMT

#1366

if you watch the GSL games (please, do a search of Nestea or Losira, and watch all the ZvPs in the last.... year. Nestea has had 3 ZvPs in the last 4 months, and all of the games are just embarassingly bad by P), P always does some goofy, gimmicky strat like stargate or DT, which can be stable and great, but Zerg just hard counters it too well (still taking a fast third, etc) and just comes out ahead. From there it's GG.

I would copy and paste this 50 times so maybe you'd read what I said. SC2 is an extremely variable game, and Combat-Ex and Venom got to GM with cannon rushing. Just because they have over 60% win rates with Protoss, does not definitively make the case that Protoss is OP.

Now Protoss may or may not be OP, but Venom/Combat-Ex having 60%+ win rates with canon rushing is not proof of that.

But I would say P is OP vs Z, due to colossi and how hard HT own infestors. The deathball is just too efficient. But just because P is OP, does not mean that I can't seriously kick Protoss ass on ladder (my win rate vP is over 60%). Very few of my ZvPs are against competent protoss who macro, and most of my wins are getting a fast third against FFE and holding their 2 base timing, or holding off their 1 base aggression, or overrunning them with 3 bases when they are stuck on 2, or rolling a gimmicky composition in a long macro game.

But the games a P plays macro, opens stalker/colossi, and then get HT support with a third, without making ridiculous mistakes like leaving their door open or getting baneling drops on their probes? Never. In fact, it's pretty much "Does Protoss eventually get HT support against my infestors, and does not do a stupid zealot/archon composition? Yes? I lose. No? I win". That's how my ZvP goes, with an extra maybe 5% loss against scout denial against coinflip cheese.

Spicy_Curry

United States10573 Posts

September 06 2011 02:22 GMT

#1367

If fungal growth costed 200/200 and they made pathogen glands give +15 energy instead of +25 then I think infestors would be a much more balanced unit. High Templars have feedback without storm and infestors will have infested terran and maybe neural. Fungal growth is strong enough to make it require research imo. The main problem with going templar is that you will die most of the time if you straight tech, but infestors are a natural part of going to hive. An alternate change could also be making infestors a t3 unit and making them cost 25 gas more.

Unrelated note, cant infestors just neural parasite Templar since feedback range = neural range

Ryder.

1117 Posts

September 06 2011 02:38 GMT

#1368

On September 06 2011 09:32 Chance55 wrote:

Show nested quote +

This disadvantage of gateway/warpgate units in general is that cost-for-cost they get stomped by the T1-1.5 of terran and zerg. They rely on positioning and T3 support units to have any decent chance. Marines/marauders/lings/roaches absolutely shit all over gateway units.

You really think gateway units would be so fucking bad if they came out of gateways the same way as terran units come out of barracks?

covote

United States86 Posts

September 06 2011 02:46 GMT

#1369

oh all protoss needs to do is sit back on their ass and macro up.

Protoss is the weakest macro race, they pretty much have to harass zerg and make them build units, but they dont have very good tools to do this without suiciding or being inefficient.

Even if P gets up on 3 bases, typical death ball still gets owned by fungals. and its likely the zerg can/should be on 4-5 bases.

so P needs 3 base coll. into HT and blink stalkers to take on the inevitable broodlords or hoards of roaches. That is a ton of gas and fragile important units. Im not saying this is imbalanced but a protoss has to play a good game while managing expansion, and zerg harass well for this to work. its not as easy as herp-a-derp build 3 base and win.

Belial88

United States5217 Posts

September 06 2011 03:04 GMT

#1370

If you essentially make it take longer for infestors to come out, you have to make HT take longer as well. Protoss can easily respond to infestation pit with HT tech, and immediately have access to FB. Having a single HT for each infestor is well worth it, since the costs are much cheaper. Also, FG has to be chain cast, you keep forgetting. At most, Zerg can pop 7 infestors, but that's after relying solely on pure lings or cutting drones severely. There is not a single game where hydras aren't a better option for dealing with midgame timing attacks - the issue is that infestors get better as the game goes on, as energy grows, whereas hydras just are completely useless once aoe comes on the field (and are slower).

Infestors also lack offensive capability like roach/hydra has, so you can simply tech up hardcore (like to HT), and even expand. Any infestor based timing push is, at it's core, mass lings, so if you have enough army to hold mass lings with sentries and zealots, you'll hold infestors. If you let infestors build up energy and you don't get AoE with storm or colossi, though, you may get ripped apart. Kind of like when Terran forgets to make ghosts against HT, and for some weird reason never expanded or teched up against a Protoss who is trying to get HT.

On an unrelated note, NP is a channeled ability, so NPing an enemy unit for just 1 second isn't useful. Like, at all. Neither is having 10 infestors die immediately to FB just to get a single FG off.

Not really a fair way to talk about P units. First off, sentries. Secondly, while 4 zerglings is very cost efficient to 1 zealot, 3 zerglings are completely worthless against a zealot. There's a point, that P units reach (especially with sentries and blink and chokes) where cost efficiency is overriden by supply efficiency - especially since it's impossible for Zerg to get +10 supply lead on a Protoss until the late game, unless something occured that allowed Zerg to get an advantage. It's just how the game operates, you know, with macro and unit cost. You'll see in any higher level game that both players keep the same supply until 'something' occurs that can gain a loss or advantage to one party (DTs, failed or not, all ins, failed or not, expansions, secured or not, big battles, losses or wins, etc).

Also, some P units are just way too cost efficient. Colossi, Sentries, Blink Stalkers, Void Rays, Immortals, and HT just own the units they counter (and in some cases, more than one type of unit) so hard that it doesn't really matter for Zerg. Yes, Hydras may be cost efficient against Stalkers, and yes, Corruptors may be cost efficient against Colossi, but Colossi rape Hydras so hard and Hydras aren't that great against stalkers and corruptors aren't that great against colossi, that there's a -gasp- imbalance.

Protoss is the weakest macro race, they pretty much have to harass zerg and make them build units, but they dont have very good tools to do this without suiciding or being inefficient.

Even if P gets up on 3 bases, typical death ball still gets owned by fungals. and its likely the zerg can/should be on 4-5 bases.

so P needs 3 base coll. into HT and blink stalkers to take on the inevitable broodlords or hoards of roaches. That is a ton of gas and fragile important units. Im not saying this is imbalanced but a protoss has to play a good game while managing expansion, and zerg harass well for this to work. its not as easy as herp-a-derp build 3 base and win.

Infestors did a lot to deal with deathballs. But it's just a band-aid. Right now, any protoss deathball army, plus HT support to immediately nullify all 100% of infestors extremely cost and supply efficiently to kill units that basically need to channel their abilitieis (FG needs to be chained, NP is channel) to be useful, makes an imbalance.

With wall-ins, cannons, and forcefields, it's also extremely hard to just bust a Protoss. It's near impossible to kill a Protoss who makes a 3 base deathball, with HT support. If Zerg outplays the opponent, they may be able to get enough of a lead to simply throw mass corruptors or mutas at the Protoss, but it's a ridiculously hard game for Zerg when Protoss knows how to abuse it.

I don't know what is so hard with 'managing expansions' - you realize Zerg has to do that too? Every race has to. At the moment, Protoss units don't require the level of micro to justify how ridiculously hard it is for Zerg to deal with someone who just turtles on 3 base and moves out with a deathball. It's not like BW where Protoss was unstoppable, but required intense micro or was worthless (reavers, HT when units didn't ball up, dragoons, carriers).

Jimbo77

139 Posts

September 06 2011 03:16 GMT

#1371

1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.

That would balance infestors.

gosuMalicE

Canada676 Posts

September 06 2011 03:22 GMT

#1372

On September 06 2011 12:16 Jimbo77 wrote:
1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.

That would balance infestors.

Is this a joke post?

Jimbo77

139 Posts

September 06 2011 03:26 GMT

#1373

On September 06 2011 12:22 gosuMalicE wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is this a joke post?

Is it balance thread or what? These changes are obvious for everyone but blizz and zergs.

templar rage

United States2509 Posts

September 06 2011 03:49 GMT

#1374

On September 06 2011 12:26 Jimbo77 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is it balance thread or what? These changes are obvious for everyone but blizz and zergs.

It's a balance thread, not a try-to-nerf-a-unit-into-oblivion thread. Every one of those changes is retarded, except possibly #4.

1)What use is 1 IT per infestor? Might as well remove the spell
2)Cost is retarded, as is researching the spell. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if HTs came with storm, so don't even try it.
3)Then it would be worthless. You should be able to NP from out of range, otherwise you're never even getting one off.
4)This is the only one that isn't completely LOLtastic. I wouldn't implement it though.

Jimbo77

139 Posts

September 06 2011 03:57 GMT

#1375

On September 06 2011 12:49 templar rage wrote:

Show nested quote +

1) FG is use per 1 infestor. Didn't you know?
2) Cost is very good. Maybe even too small. Your thoughts about HT are just your thoughts.
3) Ok. Let the range be as it is, but increase the energy cost to 150.
4) Obvious balance reason.

P.S. IT have never been used by one infestor. But when there are 10 infestors it's just a loliend of your Nexus or CC. That's why cooldownd must be made.

Rkie

United States1278 Posts

September 06 2011 04:02 GMT

#1376

On September 06 2011 12:04 Belial88 wrote:
Also, some P units are just way too cost efficient. Colossi, Sentries, Blink Stalkers, Void Rays, Immortals, and HT just own the units they counter (and in some cases, more than one type of unit) so hard that it doesn't really matter for Zerg. Yes, Hydras may be cost efficient against Stalkers, and yes, Corruptors may be cost efficient against Colossi, but Colossi rape Hydras so hard and Hydras aren't that great against stalkers and corruptors aren't that great against colossi, that there's a -gasp- imbalance.

Each of the units you listed have the potential to be cost efficient, I agree. But, there is also micro needed, as 3 of those have abilities that must be used properly in order for them to be considered efficient. If a Protoss screws up at all with either a FF, blink, FB, or storm, it is likely they lose the battle, and possibly the game. Immortals, Void Rays, and Colossi are units, not unlike the Broodlord, that, alone are very, very fragile. Without proper support, they cannot do much of anything. Being the "heavy hitters" they are, these units are going to draw the most attention, and of course be targeted the most. If they are not used nearly perfectly, they are not going to be the efficient units you claim them to be.

On September 06 2011 12:04 Belial88 wrote:
It's not like BW where Protoss was unstoppable, but required intense micro or was worthless (reavers, HT when units didn't ball up, dragoons, carriers).

So, by this, you are saying that Protoss requires no micro lategame? I am sorry, but I don't see this. If anything, I see Zerg especially with Broodlord Roach compositions this way.

On September 06 2011 12:04 Belial88 wrote:
I don't know what is so hard with 'managing expansions' - you realize Zerg has to do that too? Every race has to. At the moment, Protoss units don't require the level of micro to justify how ridiculously hard it is for Zerg to deal with someone who just turtles on 3 base and moves out with a deathball

I am not even sure what to say to this comment. All throughout your comments on this page, I am seeing a "Toss is OP Zerg is terrible" theme. When the Protoss has his "200/200 deathball" and a 3 base economy, shouldn't the Zerg have at least 4-5 maybe even 6 bases, and potentially a macro hatch in their main unless the Zerg got harassed and was behind? Something that I find very useful against the deathball is flanking, just as the swarm was designed. What is the Protoss going to do? They would have to nail seemingly perfect FFs, storms, FBs, and hope that their army doesnt lose too much supply, because of a "300 food push" from the Zerg. Idk, I think that a 1a syndrome is part of the reason why a deathball is so effective. Because of the expense of the colossus, they need to be in the back, and a flank would leave them much more defenseless since they would have less support.

DW-Unrec

492 Posts

September 06 2011 04:08 GMT

#1377

So lets use this thread to improve at the game:

Lets pretend the game is 100% balanced.

200/200 protoss (straight up macro game) is bad for zerg.
So a protoss that turtles till 200/200 will insta-win vs a zerg.
If zergs expands and tech a lot, while protoss is turtling, zerg can get many resources stockpiled.

BUT:

Zerg cannot scout well. You dont know if the terran/protoss is preparing a push or macroing till you get your lair (overlord speed).

In big maps that's ok, cuz you will have time to make units.

In small maps, you HAVE to have units on the field. If you put pressure on the T/P, he will have to group together his troups, that way you can scout his army and see if he is macroing or 200/200ing.

Since T and P are OP, they wont get destroyed by your "push to scout". The problem is that if he is macroing, you are equal. If he was preparing a push, you will lose, because you made units and not drones.

templar rage

United States2509 Posts

September 06 2011 04:12 GMT

#1378

On September 06 2011 12:57 Jimbo77 wrote:

Show nested quote +

You obviously missed the point of what I was saying about ITs. Their strength (like most Zerg stuff) comes from the fact that you get a ton of them quickly. If I have 10 infestors, then spawning 10 ITs now, 10 more in 7-8 seconds, etc is worthless. The first wave just die without doing anything before the next ones come.

It's pretty obvious you just want Infestors to go the way of the Reaper.

Jimbo77

139 Posts

September 06 2011 04:17 GMT

#1379

On September 06 2011 13:12 templar rage wrote:

Show nested quote +

I got your point. But shouldn't you got mine? Without cooldown it's just ridiculously OP spell. Let's fix it somehow. And cooldown not the worst choice . MB not 7-8 but 4-5 sec would be good.

templar rage

United States2509 Posts

September 06 2011 04:25 GMT

#1380

On September 06 2011 13:17 Jimbo77 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I got your point. But shouldn't you got mine? Without cooldown it's just ridiculously OP spell. Let's fix it somehow. And cooldown not the worst choice . MB not 7-8 but 4-5 sec would be good.

Cooldown is absolutely the worst way to go about it IMO. I don't know if ITs are OP, but if they are, adding any cooldown at all would absolutely ruin the spell. Tbh, I'm not really sure if there is anything they can directly do to ITs without ruining it. I really don't think it needs any nerf at all.

I really don't know what to say. If you think that Infestors are so OP that the ridiculous changes you suggest are necessary, then switch to Zerg and abuse them yourself. The fact that you even think any of those are good (unless you're trolling me, in which case I applaud you because it worked) makes me believe you just suck at dealing with them in a game. All I can say to that is "get better".

Prev 1 67 68 69 70 71 1266 Next

Please or register to reply.

Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 69

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming