|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 17 2013 03:09 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:59 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 17 2013 02:53 Ghanburighan wrote:
And black is white...
A mirror cannot be unbalanced because no composition or timing that you make is such that it cannot be matched by a composition or timing the opposition makes.
Hellbats led to poor gameplay, they were poor design. They were discussed in this thread because the "correction" nerfed hellbats in TvP and TvZ, making hellbat use entirely (pace Supernova) obsolete in TvP. You mean ForGG instead of SuNo, right? Haven't seen ForGG build hellbats (but, hey, I haven't seen all games). The idea was, they are very rare, and you CAN exclude certain outliers (SuNo, ForGG both, I guess). You CANNOT list terran players that use WM.
In fact he uses his marauder-hellbat-mass expand style in TvP after doing some small timing in early-mid game. It is awesome but reliant on outexpanding though IMO.
|
when a mirror match up, is too random and with few strategy, like the pvp, implicates a favoured player can be eliminated easier, that is the reason that "favoured terran" is more favoured than a "favoured toss" in the mirrors, in this logic, a mirror match up can be unbalanced, if you consider an entire tournament and results.
|
No, that would simply mean that consistency and deep runs with Protoss are less likely, because of the chance to be eliminated in the mirror. That in itself doesn't say anything about the balance of the mirror. Even if you have a rock/paper/scissors style PvP it can never be imbalanced, because both parties can choose all 3 options at any time.
|
helbats were op vs any other terran strategy, hence imbalance. And got tuned down. You can call it game design or balance. Whatever. But, again if you are thinking balance only matters at race level, i strongly disagree with, it should be looked at within each race, unit and composition. You can't discuss balance and design separately, they're tightly related.
|
There's balance of different things. Matchup balance, strategic balance (where SC2 sucks because mass expanding doesn't work that well), how the tech routes stack up and stuff. Mirror match balance is some of the latter ones pretty much by definition, just as by definition it's matchup balance is perfect.
|
On September 17 2013 03:57 Coffee Zombie wrote:
There's balance of different things. Matchup balance, strategic balance (where SC2 sucks because mass expanding doesn't work that well), how the tech routes stack up and stuff. Mirror match balance is some of the latter ones pretty much by definition, just as by definition it's matchup balance is perfect.
Maybe people are thinking of bio vs mech, or roach/hydra/infestor vs mutaling. It's still a mirror, but you don't realistically have access to the same tools since you use a different style. It would be nice if this was the norm, in the name of diversity and such.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 17 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:
helbats were op vs any other terran strategy, hence imbalance. And got tuned down. You can call it game design or balance. Whatever. But, again if you are thinking balance only matters at race level, i strongly disagree with, it should be looked at within each race, unit and composition. You can't discuss balance and design separately, they're tightly related.
Then it somehow ends up that you are contradicting yourself, since you say that all Blizz cares about is statistical balance, but hellbats were legitimately imbalanced(as in only really viable strat) only in TvT. Yet Blizzard nerfed 'em. Boom!
|
On September 17 2013 04:30 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:
helbats were op vs any other terran strategy, hence imbalance. And got tuned down. You can call it game design or balance. Whatever. But, again if you are thinking balance only matters at race level, i strongly disagree with, it should be looked at within each race, unit and composition. You can't discuss balance and design separately, they're tightly related. Then it somehow ends up that you are contradicting yourself, since you say that all Blizz cares about is statistical balance, but hellbats were legitimately imbalanced(as in only really viable strat) only in TvT. Yet Blizzard nerfed 'em. Boom!
Blizzard also nerfed blueflame hellions before because those were an issue in TvT and they went through some trouble to eliminate 4gate as the premier PvP strategy. And of course mutalisks in HotS.
Can't recall any other examples though.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 17 2013 04:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 04:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 17 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:
helbats were op vs any other terran strategy, hence imbalance. And got tuned down. You can call it game design or balance. Whatever. But, again if you are thinking balance only matters at race level, i strongly disagree with, it should be looked at within each race, unit and composition. You can't discuss balance and design separately, they're tightly related. Then it somehow ends up that you are contradicting yourself, since you say that all Blizz cares about is statistical balance, but hellbats were legitimately imbalanced(as in only really viable strat) only in TvT. Yet Blizzard nerfed 'em. Boom! Blizzard also nerfed blueflame hellions before because those were an issue in TvT and they went through some trouble to eliminate 4gate as the premier PvP strategy. And of course mutalisks in HotS. Can't recall any other examples though.
They actually changed alot of stuff to do something to actually fix mirror match-ups. Granted those were major examples.
|
On September 17 2013 04:59 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On September 17 2013 04:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 17 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:
helbats were op vs any other terran strategy, hence imbalance. And got tuned down. You can call it game design or balance. Whatever. But, again if you are thinking balance only matters at race level, i strongly disagree with, it should be looked at within each race, unit and composition. You can't discuss balance and design separately, they're tightly related. Then it somehow ends up that you are contradicting yourself, since you say that all Blizz cares about is statistical balance, but hellbats were legitimately imbalanced(as in only really viable strat) only in TvT. Yet Blizzard nerfed 'em. Boom! Blizzard also nerfed blueflame hellions before because those were an issue in TvT and they went through some trouble to eliminate 4gate as the premier PvP strategy. And of course mutalisks in HotS. Can't recall any other examples though. They actually changed alot of stuff to do something to actually fix mirror match-ups. Granted those were major examples.
Looking through the patch notes for changes that were at least 50% based on a mirror match-up:
Zealot build time increase to nerf proxy gates, a very valid PvP strategy.
Thors prioritize ground units over medivacs, to make thors useful in TvT.
Various battlecruiser changes, a unit mostly used in TvT.
Sentry build time reduction to offset the warpgate research increase, and the pylon radius/highground/ramp changes, to fix warpgate rushes which are most powerful in PvP.
Blink research time increase, done partly to help PvP since blink stalkers was such a powerful strategy there.
Banshee cloak cost reduction to offset the hellbat change.
You could also say that tempests primarily exist to scare off colossi. They experimented with warhounds to deal with marine tank. Blizzard also says that having mech be viable in TvT is their minimum goal for mech.
Of course almost all changes they make have some effect on mirror match-ups and they tend to try and not break the existing mirror strategies for the sake of fixing a non-mirror.
tempests to deal with colossi and brood lords, not implemented but warhounds to deal with siege tanks and protoss,
|
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech.
|
On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech.
This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides.
You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT.
Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides.
Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides.
Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser)
Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor)
|
On September 17 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech. This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides. You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT. Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides. Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides. Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser) Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor)
For the sake of argument lets say your are 100% accurate. There is no way they can nerf marines and marauders at this point, and buffing thors and BCs still doesn't solve the initial problem. (why would you waste your time teching to those even if they are slightly better/worth it when the other shit does just fine)
|
On September 17 2013 08:14 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech. This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides. You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT. Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides. Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides. Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser) Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor) For the sake of argument lets say your are 100% accurate. There is no way they can nerf marines and marauders at this point, and buffing thors and BCs still doesn't solve the initial problem. (why would you waste your time teching to those even if they are slightly better/worth it when the other shit does just fine)
I wasn't talking about buffing.
A Battlecruiser is a unit that deals 6 damage every .23 seconds making it not much different from a stimmed marine. It has similar range and is slower. There is no tactical reason to ever build one.
A colossus acts different than either Templars OR stalkers Or zealots Or immortals.
A Broodlord has better range than either Hydra, Roach, or Mutalisk
As tools you actually build them not only for their power, but because they allow you to do what you can't normally do.
Battlecruisers don't provide that. Vikings *BARELY* provide that and only because Colossus exist.
I'm not saying Terran needs buffs. I'm saying there is no need to pay 200 gas for something you already have that costs less gas.
Its not a nerf this, buff that scenario, it's a "Why would I make a fatter marauder" scenario.
|
I (largely) agree with you when it comes to Thors being too similar to marauders, but your marine vs Battlecruisers comparison is a huge stretch. There are plenty of tactical reasons to build Battlecruisers over marines. They can fly, they significantly outrange marines when using yamato cannons, they're much less vulnerable to area of effect damage, they can be repaired quickly, and they're incredibly supply effective in the ultra late game.
|
On September 17 2013 09:20 archwaykitten wrote:
I (largely) agree with you when it comes to Thors being too similar to marauders, but your marine vs Battlecruisers comparison is a huge stretch. There are plenty of tactical reasons to build Battlecruisers over marines. They can fly, they significantly outrange marines when using yamato cannons, they're much less vulnerable to area of effect damage, they can be repaired quickly, and they're incredibly supply effective in the ultra late game.
You are correct but that is off the topic. For the sake of his argument lets just assume he was correct. (I also agree that BC are really the best counter to mass ravens and yamato is counter to a lot of things really late game)
On September 17 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 08:14 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 17 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech. This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides. You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT. Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides. Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides. Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser) Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor) For the sake of argument lets say your are 100% accurate. There is no way they can nerf marines and marauders at this point, and buffing thors and BCs still doesn't solve the initial problem. (why would you waste your time teching to those even if they are slightly better/worth it when the other shit does just fine) I wasn't talking about buffing. A Battlecruiser is a unit that deals 6 damage every .23 seconds making it not much different from a stimmed marine. It has similar range and is slower. There is no tactical reason to ever build one. A colossus acts different than either Templars OR stalkers Or zealots Or immortals. A Broodlord has better range than either Hydra, Roach, or Mutalisk As tools you actually build them not only for their power, but because they allow you to do what you can't normally do. Battlecruisers don't provide that. Vikings *BARELY* provide that and only because Colossus exist. I'm not saying Terran needs buffs. I'm saying there is no need to pay 200 gas for something you already have that costs less gas. Its not a nerf this, buff that scenario, it's a "Why would I make a fatter marauder" scenario.
You still are missing the point, or not making a case for your point about the solution for the problem I suggested initially. Pretend thors and BC don't exist right now, the problem is MnMnMnWM. What do we do about them in TvZ? Or do we just buff some zerg stuff ? (I don't think you can do this)
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On September 17 2013 09:32 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 09:20 archwaykitten wrote:
I (largely) agree with you when it comes to Thors being too similar to marauders, but your marine vs Battlecruisers comparison is a huge stretch. There are plenty of tactical reasons to build Battlecruisers over marines. They can fly, they significantly outrange marines when using yamato cannons, they're much less vulnerable to area of effect damage, they can be repaired quickly, and they're incredibly supply effective in the ultra late game. You are correct but that is off the topic. For the sake of his argument lets just assume he was correct. (I also agree that BC are really the best counter to mass ravens and yamato is counter to a lot of things really late game) Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 17 2013 08:14 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 17 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech. This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides. You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT. Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides. Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides. Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser) Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor) For the sake of argument lets say your are 100% accurate. There is no way they can nerf marines and marauders at this point, and buffing thors and BCs still doesn't solve the initial problem. (why would you waste your time teching to those even if they are slightly better/worth it when the other shit does just fine) I wasn't talking about buffing. A Battlecruiser is a unit that deals 6 damage every .23 seconds making it not much different from a stimmed marine. It has similar range and is slower. There is no tactical reason to ever build one. A colossus acts different than either Templars OR stalkers Or zealots Or immortals. A Broodlord has better range than either Hydra, Roach, or Mutalisk As tools you actually build them not only for their power, but because they allow you to do what you can't normally do. Battlecruisers don't provide that. Vikings *BARELY* provide that and only because Colossus exist. I'm not saying Terran needs buffs. I'm saying there is no need to pay 200 gas for something you already have that costs less gas. Its not a nerf this, buff that scenario, it's a "Why would I make a fatter marauder" scenario. You still are missing the point, or not making a case for your point about the solution for the problem I suggested initially. Pretend thors and BC don't exist right now, the problem is MnMnMnWM. What do we do about them in TvZ? Or do we just buff some zerg stuff ? (I don't think you can do this)
Problem is the Widow Mine, not the Marines or Marauders. Bio micro was always fun to watch and hard to execute (granted, I doubt that any Zerg complained about Terran's splits, when we all know how difficult it is to actually do them right), especially against Banelings, however, Blizzard gave Terran the perfect counter to Zerg's counter to bio, which is the Widow Mine.
Buffing Zerg would cause a road of imbalances, as currently, ZvP is a fucking awesome MU to watch and to play. ZvT is fun to watch first 10 times and is horrible to play at all stages of the game.
I do not like to play against gimmicky tactics against gimmicky units in such a game as SC2 (unless gimmickness is bestowed upon you with proxy rax or some shenanigans like that), that's like giving Zerg the upgrade to deal a critical strike 30% of the time. That's how Widow Mines are, and that's how Widow Mines work. I do not like them in this game, and moreso, I believe that majority of the players don't like playing or using them either.
|
Yea, I think the problem really lies in the unit concept itself. Just think how many iterations they went through before they 'settled' on the current form. They were all pretty bad. The ultimate goal of the unit wasn't to be a staple part of the army, or even a harass potential. It was simply to be a map defense control mechanic for runby and muta repelling etc. A spidermine replacement that worked for air, if you will.
Perhaps they should have an additional timer that doesn't allow them to unburrow before they shoot once, or after X amount of time. That would definitely be a more exciting element for spectators. Or maybe the unit should be moved to some separate building/unit that can only cast out X amount of widow mines at a time (sort of like a nuke silo). It would be neat to see ghosts in armies calling down widow mines or something like that.
|
On September 17 2013 10:42 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Yea, I think the problem really lies in the unit concept itself. Just think how many iterations they went through before they 'settled' on the current form. They were all pretty bad. The ultimate goal of the unit wasn't to be a staple part of the army, or even a harass potential. It was simply to be a map defense control mechanic for runby and muta repelling etc. A spidermine replacement that worked for air, if you will.
Perhaps they should have an additional timer that doesn't allow them to unburrow before they shoot once, or after X amount of time. That would definitely be a more exciting element for spectators. Or maybe the unit should be moved to some separate building/unit that can only cast out X amount of widow mines at a time (sort of like a nuke silo). It would be neat to see ghosts in armies calling down widow mines or something like that.
The widowmine is problematic not because of its design.
It's essentially the SC2 siege tank minus the drawbacks.
Does it have a blind spot? Nope.
High damage? Yup.
Mobile? Yup.
Cheap? Yup.
Easy to mass? Yes as well.
The "drawback" is it has a shorter range than the tank. But for all the advantages it gains, of course its worth the range loss.
The problem isn't that its a crappy mine, it's that its a good siege tank.
|
Would be nice if ghosts or a few ravens (without having to have a lot of them ) were more effective against zerg, together with widow mine being less effective.
Especially ghosts, then we would see more nukes too. Instead of long death animations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
