EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 768
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote: He has fair point. Everyone can provide 'convenient' statstics. Thats why I prefer if people kept it out of here. Exactly. Funny to see Naruto using statistics of evidence of balance match up, while he dismissed all statistics we've had over the past few month where we had a 60% TvZ, tweaking in some crazy way (look, if you remove all win from top terran, the match up is balanced!). On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote: I think I actually came up with a pretty decent idea for widow mines right now. What if after they shoot their missile (until it unburrows and reburrows) it loses it's cloaked status (lorewise it overheats or powersurges until it recharges). So this way it still holds the same initial burst potential but makes zerg players have less shit to apm and invest into by bringing overseers and their lack of detection in general. This also creates another skillset and challenge for terrans to let them blast and reposition them and be more strategic and cautious with them with them (even just burrow/unburrow where they stand). So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. The mines could display an animation or buff that signals when they are revealed (powered down) and need to be reburrowed. If this seems too much of a nerf, an alternative would just be that the mines are revealed until they self reload or are repositioned. So that way lower skilled players still don't have all the extra tasking to do when using mines if they just leave them planted. Hum, I don't think so, they should instead increase the micro possibility for the zerg, for example if we had, like when the Raven use the seeker missile, a visual indication of which unit is targeted so top player could split, known if mutalisk needs to be saved... and so on | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote: What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? One is the premier terran siege weapon and the other cost 125 gas. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On September 18 2013 04:03 Vanadiel wrote: Exactly. Funny to see Naruto using statistics of evidence of balance match up, while he dismissed all statistics we've had over the past few month where we had a 60% TvZ, tweaking in some crazy way (look, if you remove all win from top terran, the match up is balanced!). Hum, I don't think so, they should instead increase the micro possibility for the zerg, for example if we had, like when the Raven use the seeker missile, a visual indication of which unit is targeted so top player could split, known if mutalisk needs to be saved... and so on What are you talking about? Looking at aligulac's report, the highest TvZ winrate at 55.6% in April 2013. That was during the reign of hellbats, which are nerfed and are no longer relevant in the current meta. Since the hellbat nerf in July, we have July winrates at 50% and August winrates at 52%. /edit It's one thing to criticize Narut0's method of analysis, but to be balanced, you also have to present some of your own research or look at reputable statistics which doesn't show any major imbalance. As for your idea of creating micro opportunity, I wouldn't use ravens as the model. Ravens are not used in either TvZ or TvP, and barely in TvT (except to dump excess energy after using it to detect banshees) because the lock-on time is too long. I've seen Polt use it once, but at that time hyun was forced into an all-in push with queens off the creep. Backing away from ravens would mean queens would die and weaken the entire push. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On September 18 2013 04:11 plogamer wrote: What are you talking about? Looking at aligulac's report, the highest TvZ winrate at 55.6% in April 2013. That was during the reign of hellbats, which are nerfed and are no longer relevant in the current meta. Since the hellbat nerf in July, we have July winrates at 50% and August winrates at 52%. /edit It's one thing to criticize Narut0's method of analysis, but to be balanced, you also have to present some of your own research or look at reputable statistics which doesn't show any major imbalance. As for your idea of creating micro opportunity, I wouldn't use ravens as the model. Ravens are not used in either TvZ or TvP, and barely in TvT (except to dump excess energy after using it to detect banshees) because the lock-on time is too long. I've seen Polt use it once, but at that time hyun was forced into an all-in push with queens off the creep. Backing away from ravens would mean queens would die and weaken the entire push. I was just using the raven to illustrate what I was talking about, that it could be interesting if we could see which unit is targeted by the widow mine, same as when the seeker missile is used (units in red). About winrate, Naruto was also talking about IEM qualifier, while he dismissed WCS, OSL, GSTL statistics since the beginning of HoTS. And I remember him back in the days where he just remove wins from Flash or Innovation because they just are "too strong so it doesn't count when they win" (but, if i remember well, he kept their loss) just to prove a point. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12386 Posts
Anyway you shouldn't have to use stats to see that terrans have been struggling with TvP recently, you should just watch games. They used to use early agression to refrain protoss tech (or "greed", if you want to put one of those dumb valor judgements on it), and now they can't as the protoss defensive play is getting too tight. Obviously they're gonna struggle until they find a new way to deal with this fast lategame shift. Maybe there's no way to do it, and then there's a balance problem. Maybe the scv pulls are a good way to do it (as it seems people are shutting down First pretty easily with it), and then the metagame can evolve to protosses trying to achieve their goal without dying to this. In that case, you can still argue there's a design problem if you want (but then you don't use stats). | ||
|
Jerom
Netherlands588 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3292 Posts
I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 18 2013 06:30 ChristianS wrote: So a lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that we ought to nerf widow mines and buff siege tanks, because siege tanks are awesome game design and widow mines are less so. So I guess my question is, why? Is that just nostalgia, or can you give concrete reasons why siege tanks make for better gameplay than widow mines? I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. The problem is that Widow Mines are better than seige tanks and hence there is no reason to build seige tanks. If we want a unit that seiges up, deals high damage, and provides splash--why use Seige Tanks when Widow Mines are available. Its not like you first get widow mines, and then upgrade to tanks. Or you first get tanks, and then upgrade to widow mines. They're available at the same time. One is cheaper, deals more damage, takes up less supply, and hits air. The problem isn't that we need to nerf one and/or buff the other. The problem is that there isn't a situation where you'd want the tank over the mine and they're available at the same time. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 18 2013 06:30 ChristianS wrote: So a lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that we ought to nerf widow mines and buff siege tanks, because siege tanks are awesome game design and widow mines are less so. So I guess my question is, why? Is that just nostalgia, or can you give concrete reasons why siege tanks make for better gameplay than widow mines? I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. because the widow mine obviously overlaps function with the siege tank. in fact, its cheaper in minerals, gas, and food. it also hits air units. why would you ever build a siege tank again? the trade off is lower range and lower dps but that is irrelevant considering the current siege tank is barely able to effectively attack at long range anyways. | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
I'd like to see some change that would include tanks as a viable alternative strategy in TvZ other than just emergency defense vs Roach-Bane allin. | ||
|
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
On September 18 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote: One is the premier terran siege weapon and the other cost 125 gas. The 'ol teamliquid switcheroo. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On September 18 2013 06:30 ChristianS wrote: So a lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that we ought to nerf widow mines and buff siege tanks, because siege tanks are awesome game design and widow mines are less so. So I guess my question is, why? Is that just nostalgia, or can you give concrete reasons why siege tanks make for better gameplay than widow mines? I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. Marine/Tank TvZ back in WoL was spectacular to watch same as in BW incase you've forgotten. Its a whole new different ballgame when tanks are the support units compared to widow mines being a support unit. It was always interesting to see how the zerg approach a marine/tank/medivac army where as MMMM is more of a constant meat grinder.. Plus it wouldn't mean massing tanks would be the way to go either because they are simply support units unless you mech. Its a win-win if tanks regain their viability because: a) it brings back marine/tank/medivac albeit stronger than WoL because of potential tank buffs. b) MMMM style can still be played out (for those who like more mobility/fast paced games). c) Mech gets a buff in the form of stronger tanks. This just needs to be counter balanced by a buff on the zerg in some shape or form to reduce the MMMM effectiveness throughout late mid/late game. Im surprised its taking so long for blizzard to take notice because of how dominant strategy the MMMM has become. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3292 Posts
On September 18 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 18 2013 06:30 ChristianS wrote: So a lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that we ought to nerf widow mines and buff siege tanks, because siege tanks are awesome game design and widow mines are less so. So I guess my question is, why? Is that just nostalgia, or can you give concrete reasons why siege tanks make for better gameplay than widow mines? I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. The problem is that Widow Mines are better than seige tanks and hence there is no reason to build seige tanks. If we want a unit that seiges up, deals high damage, and provides splash--why use Seige Tanks when Widow Mines are available. Its not like you first get widow mines, and then upgrade to tanks. Or you first get tanks, and then upgrade to widow mines. They're available at the same time. One is cheaper, deals more damage, takes up less supply, and hits air. The problem isn't that we need to nerf one and/or buff the other. The problem is that there isn't a situation where you'd want the tank over the mine and they're available at the same time. On September 18 2013 06:53 a176 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 18 2013 06:30 ChristianS wrote: So a lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that we ought to nerf widow mines and buff siege tanks, because siege tanks are awesome game design and widow mines are less so. So I guess my question is, why? Is that just nostalgia, or can you give concrete reasons why siege tanks make for better gameplay than widow mines? I mean, I loved the siege tank in BW. But siege tanks were designed with: a) massive range. b) gigantic damage and AoE. c) extremely slow/defensive. d) extreme weakness to air, or to anything that can get close to them. That means the gameplay they encourage is a slow amassing of tanks until you hit a critical mass, with contingency plans for how you'll negate air play. That's very slow-paced, very turtley gameplay. Widow mines are less powerful en masse, but they are much better in small numbers, and much more easily repositioned, encouraging fast-paced, aggressive gameplay with lots of multitasking around the map. It's also possible to micro against them (unlike tanks). This is the sort of reasoning Blizzard uses to justify shifting the AoE base of Terran from siege tanks to widow mines. I think a lot of people would like to see widow mines diminish and use, while siege tanks make a comeback. That might take a change from Blizzard, in which case we can't just suggest ways for them to make it happen. We need to explain why the siege tank makes for better gameplay. because the widow mine obviously overlaps function with the siege tank. in fact, its cheaper in minerals, gas, and food. it also hits air units. why would you ever build a siege tank again? the trade off is lower range and lower dps but that is irrelevant considering the current siege tank is barely able to effectively attack at long range anyways. Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? On September 18 2013 08:11 YyapSsap wrote: Marine/Tank TvZ back in WoL was spectacular to watch same as in BW incase you've forgotten. Its a whole new different ballgame when tanks are the support units compared to widow mines being a support unit. It was always interesting to see how the zerg approach a marine/tank/medivac army where as MMMM is more of a constant meat grinder.. Plus it wouldn't mean massing tanks would be the way to go either because they are simply support units unless you mech. Its a win-win if tanks regain their viability because: a) it brings back marine/tank/medivac albeit stronger than WoL because of potential tank buffs. b) MMMM style can still be played out (for those who like more mobility/fast paced games). c) Mech gets a buff in the form of stronger tanks. This just needs to be counter balanced by a buff on the zerg in some shape or form to reduce the MMMM effectiveness throughout late mid/late game. Im surprised its taking so long for blizzard to take notice because of how dominant strategy the MMMM has become. I mean, so tanks are in sufficiently low use that Blizzard could probably safely buff them without breaking everything (although it still might break TvT). That said, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that a Zerg approaching a marine/tank army was more interesting. The high range of the siege tank makes positioning and micro a great deal less important. For instance, if you want to protect your banelings from widow mines, you move them away from the mines and let them detonate on zerglings instead. But against tanks, you can't really do anything about it – there's no way to keep your banelings out of the 13 range, so the most you could do is split them. But unlike marine splits against banelings, you can't tell where the tank shots are going to hit, so you have to just keep all the banelings split up, rather than splitting away from strategic places. I would say the Zerg micro against MMMM is strictly more interesting and complex than that against marine/tank. Here's the thing: I love siege tanks, and I'd really like them to get big buffs so they were a core army unit again. But I'm trying to come up with a reason why they'd be a better primary army unit to play with and watch than widow mines, and all I can come up with is because I like them. And I think that's just the nostalgia talking. | ||
|
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3292 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote: Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
MattD
United Kingdom83 Posts
On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote: you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good, it's as simple as that. | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote: The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins. | ||
| ||
