|
On December 09 2013 08:53 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:33 Maismz wrote:
And if bad player, we'll call them P for exemple, have 50% winrate vs good player, i'll randomly call them Z or T, is the game balanced ? I don't think winrate mean anything, but from what i feel after watching a lot of tournaments lately, P is ruining the game atm, and the race being op give win of good player like parting, rain or any other smart and good toss less meaning. First of all, the tournament results are balanced. Data: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=437836 Second, if two players (who have played many, many games against each other) have about a 50/50 winrate against each other, all that says is that their next series is likely to be a close one. It may not be, but that's the best you can extrapolate from their results. It doesn't say that their races are imbalanced. On a related note, it's impossible to extrapolate the results of an entire race based on the success of one pro-gamer. All three races have a bunch of top tier players. Here are a few, in no particular order: Terran: Taeja, Innovation, MMA, Maru, Polt, Bomber. Zerg: Soulkey, Scarlett, Life, Jaedong Protoss: Soulkey, sOs, Dear, Rain As I said earlier, these stats are irrelevent because it's just too early to tell. Look at the last 2 weeks. And see how the trend tend toward imbalance. Check Aligulac's balance curve. Terran is at its lowest point since Queen patch. lol this balance whining by Terran is not new, and the statistics show that all year long, it's been a balanced game. So if all the statistics are "irrelevant" (which is obviously a bullshit claim to make), then there's no evidence to support any of these whiny claims. Cool. Oh, the last week was tough for Terran because of the new patch? The first month of every balance patch offers a new change in the metagame that all races need to adjust to. That's part of the game. Look at this http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/See, after the queen buff, stats were still around 50% for 2 months. Are you saying TvZ was balanced after that patch ? It's the same now.
Um, I think that's what you're saying lol. And even looking at the link you posted, you'll see that Terran has historically been beating Protoss moreso than the reverse. Even up until July of this year. So I'm more than happy to take a few months where Protoss has about a 53% win percentage. Don't worry though, it'll come back down like always. Also, next time, please don't completely ignore evidence that I show you. At least I'm looking at your link and responding to it 
On December 09 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:47 ffadicted wrote:
Watch any pro streams and if they literally go proxy oracle over half their games, I'll eat crow
Anyway I'm not gonna argue with Faust lol he's not really interested in discussing balance, he's obviously just looking to whine and other to join in his whining. It's right, since you play terran on ladder, you have a good notion of what protoss do to me. Watch Byun, Avilo, every pro players. 2 day ago I watched Byun for like 7 hours. He got blink AT LEAST 90% of the time. Check VOD.
...Really? Come on now lol. He's the king of balance whining.
On December 09 2013 08:58 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:54 ffadicted wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:21 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:17 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:05 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 07:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 07:51 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 07:45 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
Except its already been demonstrated that terran is underrepresented in the higher leagues whilst being fairly equal in overall representation. Youre not fooling anyone. So what happens if you tweak balance to improve representation in GM and top Terran winrates vP and vZ skyrocket to 60% percent? Just leave it as-is because GM is balanced? Eventually players would start switch to T because of the imbalance at the top level, regardless of GM representation, and so the pendulum would swing towards Terran over-representation. Unequal representation can be a symptom of an imbalanced game, but if things are balanced at the top level, it means pretty much nothing. I dont give a fucking shit about the pro scene. I didnt pay for this game for pros to play a balanced game, I payed for it so that I could play a balanced and FUN game. Given that protoss has literally 20 earlygame options where terran has literally 2 doesnt make for an enjoyable experience, and anyone with a brain realizes that. Were already seeing pros switching to protoss and foreign terrans having zero impact, but surely that is just a coincidence just like its a coincidence that gm is 44% protoss and 23% terran. So you don't care about balance. Got it. The skill levels of you and everybody else will always constantly be in flux. It's pretty much impossible to make things balanced at all skill levels of play, so having three different races with different strengths and weaknesses will create many, many different thresholds for one race being easier or harder or better or worse or whatever than the other(s). And what about the Protosses that play against T players in GM with good winrates vP? If you nerf P/buff T, you screw over P players that have to play against those already good T. Your desires are inherently selfish. Balancing for any level of play other than the top will create imbalances at the top level, and additionally create a bunch of players with a different set of problems than you that now have an unfair game. You don't want Blizzard to make things better for the game, you want them to make things better for you. The sooner you admit it and acknowledge it, the sooner you can stop whining here. The game can be balance a different skill level of play. See March 2012 where everything was 50% at pro, and no one cried about GM or Master. Then patchqueen came. See October 2013, stats were close to 50% at pro level, GM was closer to 30% for T, and noone cried. Than PatchOracleNerfMine came. Indeed. Theres this random assumption that you EITHER balance at Taeja and Dear level OR that you have 33% of each race in Grandmaster and that there cant be anything in between. Theres CLEARLY a problem with protoss earlygame options, which, while not necessarily affecting Taeja and the likes on a good day, has a hugely detrimental effect on tvp for anyone below 250apm. And to see protoss come in here and pretend that nothing is amiss when we see such a huge discrepancy between the races when it comes to viable strats is the biggest joke of it all. If Grandmaster was made up of 44% terran and 23% protoss wed never hear the fucking end of it. So stop being such fucking hypocrites. Why would I care what the race distribution of GM was as long as each race was winning an even percentage of the time? Perhaps I'd have fewer role models to emulate or watch, but there's still a few hundred Terrans in GM, and not all top players play GM anyway. You ranting about things and justifying them by saying "Well if the tables were turned, you would rant too" doesn't actually validate your claims, because there's no evidence that we would be complaining about how not having fun = imbalanced, or how having a hundred fewer players of Race X means that Race X is necessarily being discriminated against. It's fine that you care more about the balance of the racial distribution than you do the results of the games, but holy cow, looking at these last few posts of yours... you're really, really angry :/ 1. Winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%. That tells us nothing 2. Someone has forgotten the sad zealot fanclub. Protoss players whined about terran being op all the fucking time back in the day, and they were right it was op and terran was nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed again. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed... Call me when terran has 5 players in Code S and 1 in Ro16 lol Starcraft will never reach levels of imbalance like the sad zealot GomTvT broodlord imbafestor times. And that's a damn good thing, we don't want to go there ever again for any race. I don't think anyone is denying terran is clearly at a little disadvantage right now, but it's pretty obvious the people whining in this thread are over exagerating it a lot to validate their ladder losses which are likely due to trivial things like supply blocks, poor army control and sub-par macro. The changes needed to balance top level TvP are very small, like PO tweeks and small late game tweeks to terran's effectiveness Lol "no ones is denying"? Have you read the thread at all? Tell Plansix and his platinum buddies that rofl.
PvT is at a 55% win rate for Protoss at this moment ( http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/ ), because a new patch that helped Protoss and hurt Terran just kicked in. There's always an early reaction to new patches. The metagame accommodates the new buffs and nerfs, and then in a month or two we see most bumps get ironed out, because people learn how to deal with the new strategies that have emerged. It's not the end of the world, as was shown earlier. Terrans are still winning tournaments as frequently as Protoss and Zerg (cited earlier).
|
On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:35 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:29 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:24 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]No, I have no problem with that. If you altered the game so that similar numbers were found in each leagues, you would mess up the top balance of play, which would lead to people switching to the "favored" race, which would create a similarly unequal situation. Except this time, the top level balance would be messed up along with the GM representation.
Uneven representation + good top-level balance >>>> uneven representation + poor top-level balance.
Except this isnt true, we already now the game has had periods with fairly equal distribution on ladder and very close to 50% winrates in tournaments. You simply make an anfounded assumption that if the game is balanced so that there is equal race-distribution in grandmaster then it must inevitably be imbalanced in the proscene. Why would that be? Because current proscene winrates are balanced. Therefore if you objectively buff T and/or nerf P, you would alter the balance at the top. Period. Players were far worse at the game and the map pool was far different when racial distributions were closer to even across-the-board. It is in no way safe to assume that as the game has gotten more figured out and developed that you can return to this state. Again not true at all. Introducing more earlygame options for terran wouldnt necessarily scew probalance at all but make more strats viable on ladder which would reflect positively on the race. You make completely unsound assumptions which are blatantly false. We already have the proof that the number of earlygame options a race has doesnt necessarily reflect their overall performance in the proscene, just look at protoss who has 20 allins who are all perfectly viable in grandmaster but only maybe 5 who are really viable when you play a top tier opponent. Im asking for the same for terran. Youre assuming more options means more powerful options. No... we need more options, neither of which needs to be more powerful than the current ones are. Hence it becomes a matter of scouting for the protoss, who now often doesnt even bother scouting while terran has to send an scv AND a reaper. How do you introduce those options in a way that doesn't disrupt current balance, though? The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is.
I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY
I think they call that a con
Or maybe a scam
|
On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:35 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:29 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:25 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
Except this isnt true, we already now the game has had periods with fairly equal distribution on ladder and very close to 50% winrates in tournaments. You simply make an anfounded assumption that if the game is balanced so that there is equal race-distribution in grandmaster then it must inevitably be imbalanced in the proscene. Why would that be? Because current proscene winrates are balanced. Therefore if you objectively buff T and/or nerf P, you would alter the balance at the top. Period. Players were far worse at the game and the map pool was far different when racial distributions were closer to even across-the-board. It is in no way safe to assume that as the game has gotten more figured out and developed that you can return to this state. Again not true at all. Introducing more earlygame options for terran wouldnt necessarily scew probalance at all but make more strats viable on ladder which would reflect positively on the race. You make completely unsound assumptions which are blatantly false. We already have the proof that the number of earlygame options a race has doesnt necessarily reflect their overall performance in the proscene, just look at protoss who has 20 allins who are all perfectly viable in grandmaster but only maybe 5 who are really viable when you play a top tier opponent. Im asking for the same for terran. Youre assuming more options means more powerful options. No... we need more options, neither of which needs to be more powerful than the current ones are. Hence it becomes a matter of scouting for the protoss, who now often doesnt even bother scouting while terran has to send an scv AND a reaper. How do you introduce those options in a way that doesn't disrupt current balance, though? The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam
The thing is, Ive already told you how you do it, yet you somehow expect me to map out the exact details of it even though Im not payed shit for doing so. Its quite easy really, either the amount of options a race has reflects directly on balance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say).
But you seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time, so fucking pay me.
|
On December 09 2013 08:54 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:21 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:17 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:05 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 07:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 07:51 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 07:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 07:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] Unless, of course, there were other reasons why people would pick one race over the other besides "This race lets me win the most". But I suppose master level players can't play for fun, right? And choosing a race that you deem more interesting would be out of the picture too? Over-representation of Race X =/= Overpowered Race X. Race X would be overpowered if it consistently beats Race Y a significant percentage time more, and at the peak levels of play where there is less variation and fundamental confounding variables. Which is something we do not see ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=437836 ). Data is a beautiful thing. Except its already been demonstrated that terran is underrepresented in the higher leagues whilst being fairly equal in overall representation. Youre not fooling anyone. So what happens if you tweak balance to improve representation in GM and top Terran winrates vP and vZ skyrocket to 60% percent? Just leave it as-is because GM is balanced? Eventually players would start switch to T because of the imbalance at the top level, regardless of GM representation, and so the pendulum would swing towards Terran over-representation. Unequal representation can be a symptom of an imbalanced game, but if things are balanced at the top level, it means pretty much nothing. I dont give a fucking shit about the pro scene. I didnt pay for this game for pros to play a balanced game, I payed for it so that I could play a balanced and FUN game. Given that protoss has literally 20 earlygame options where terran has literally 2 doesnt make for an enjoyable experience, and anyone with a brain realizes that. Were already seeing pros switching to protoss and foreign terrans having zero impact, but surely that is just a coincidence just like its a coincidence that gm is 44% protoss and 23% terran. So you don't care about balance. Got it. The skill levels of you and everybody else will always constantly be in flux. It's pretty much impossible to make things balanced at all skill levels of play, so having three different races with different strengths and weaknesses will create many, many different thresholds for one race being easier or harder or better or worse or whatever than the other(s). And what about the Protosses that play against T players in GM with good winrates vP? If you nerf P/buff T, you screw over P players that have to play against those already good T. Your desires are inherently selfish. Balancing for any level of play other than the top will create imbalances at the top level, and additionally create a bunch of players with a different set of problems than you that now have an unfair game. You don't want Blizzard to make things better for the game, you want them to make things better for you. The sooner you admit it and acknowledge it, the sooner you can stop whining here. The game can be balance a different skill level of play. See March 2012 where everything was 50% at pro, and no one cried about GM or Master. Then patchqueen came. See October 2013, stats were close to 50% at pro level, GM was closer to 30% for T, and noone cried. Than PatchOracleNerfMine came. Indeed. Theres this random assumption that you EITHER balance at Taeja and Dear level OR that you have 33% of each race in Grandmaster and that there cant be anything in between. Theres CLEARLY a problem with protoss earlygame options, which, while not necessarily affecting Taeja and the likes on a good day, has a hugely detrimental effect on tvp for anyone below 250apm. And to see protoss come in here and pretend that nothing is amiss when we see such a huge discrepancy between the races when it comes to viable strats is the biggest joke of it all. If Grandmaster was made up of 44% terran and 23% protoss wed never hear the fucking end of it. So stop being such fucking hypocrites. Why would I care what the race distribution of GM was as long as each race was winning an even percentage of the time? Perhaps I'd have fewer role models to emulate or watch, but there's still a few hundred Terrans in GM, and not all top players play GM anyway. You ranting about things and justifying them by saying "Well if the tables were turned, you would rant too" doesn't actually validate your claims, because there's no evidence that we would be complaining about how not having fun = imbalanced, or how having a hundred fewer players of Race X means that Race X is necessarily being discriminated against. It's fine that you care more about the balance of the racial distribution than you do the results of the games, but holy cow, looking at these last few posts of yours... you're really, really angry :/ 1. Winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%. That tells us nothing 2. Someone has forgotten the sad zealot fanclub. Protoss players whined about terran being op all the fucking time back in the day, and they were right it was op and terran was nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed again. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed... Call me when terran has 5 players in Code S and 1 in Ro16 lol Hey come on now, those 18 Terrans in the RO32 were just better than all the Protoss and Zerg players back then.
At least that is what many Terrans on TL argued back then.
Edit: and from what I remember, there still was a lot of Protoss in GM back then. It's how the race always has been. Good at BO1 against a random opponent, weaker in tournaments. It's not like blink all-ins and proxies didn't exist back then either.
I still hate the oracle though. That thing ruined PvP.
|
On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:35 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:29 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]Because current proscene winrates are balanced. Therefore if you objectively buff T and/or nerf P, you would alter the balance at the top. Period.
Players were far worse at the game and the map pool was far different when racial distributions were closer to even across-the-board. It is in no way safe to assume that as the game has gotten more figured out and developed that you can return to this state.
Again not true at all. Introducing more earlygame options for terran wouldnt necessarily scew probalance at all but make more strats viable on ladder which would reflect positively on the race. You make completely unsound assumptions which are blatantly false. We already have the proof that the number of earlygame options a race has doesnt necessarily reflect their overall performance in the proscene, just look at protoss who has 20 allins who are all perfectly viable in grandmaster but only maybe 5 who are really viable when you play a top tier opponent. Im asking for the same for terran. Youre assuming more options means more powerful options. No... we need more options, neither of which needs to be more powerful than the current ones are. Hence it becomes a matter of scouting for the protoss, who now often doesnt even bother scouting while terran has to send an scv AND a reaper. How do you introduce those options in a way that doesn't disrupt current balance, though? The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something.
|
On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:35 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
Again not true at all. Introducing more earlygame options for terran wouldnt necessarily scew probalance at all but make more strats viable on ladder which would reflect positively on the race. You make completely unsound assumptions which are blatantly false. We already have the proof that the number of earlygame options a race has doesnt necessarily reflect their overall performance in the proscene, just look at protoss who has 20 allins who are all perfectly viable in grandmaster but only maybe 5 who are really viable when you play a top tier opponent. Im asking for the same for terran. Youre assuming more options means more powerful options. No... we need more options, neither of which needs to be more powerful than the current ones are. Hence it becomes a matter of scouting for the protoss, who now often doesnt even bother scouting while terran has to send an scv AND a reaper. How do you introduce those options in a way that doesn't disrupt current balance, though? The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something.
You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want.
Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start.
|
On December 09 2013 09:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:53 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:33 Maismz wrote:
And if bad player, we'll call them P for exemple, have 50% winrate vs good player, i'll randomly call them Z or T, is the game balanced ? I don't think winrate mean anything, but from what i feel after watching a lot of tournaments lately, P is ruining the game atm, and the race being op give win of good player like parting, rain or any other smart and good toss less meaning. First of all, the tournament results are balanced. Data: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=437836 Second, if two players (who have played many, many games against each other) have about a 50/50 winrate against each other, all that says is that their next series is likely to be a close one. It may not be, but that's the best you can extrapolate from their results. It doesn't say that their races are imbalanced. On a related note, it's impossible to extrapolate the results of an entire race based on the success of one pro-gamer. All three races have a bunch of top tier players. Here are a few, in no particular order: Terran: Taeja, Innovation, MMA, Maru, Polt, Bomber. Zerg: Soulkey, Scarlett, Life, Jaedong Protoss: Soulkey, sOs, Dear, Rain As I said earlier, these stats are irrelevent because it's just too early to tell. Look at the last 2 weeks. And see how the trend tend toward imbalance. Check Aligulac's balance curve. Terran is at its lowest point since Queen patch. lol this balance whining by Terran is not new, and the statistics show that all year long, it's been a balanced game. So if all the statistics are "irrelevant" (which is obviously a bullshit claim to make), then there's no evidence to support any of these whiny claims. Cool. Oh, the last week was tough for Terran because of the new patch? The first month of every balance patch offers a new change in the metagame that all races need to adjust to. That's part of the game. Look at this http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/See, after the queen buff, stats were still around 50% for 2 months. Are you saying TvZ was balanced after that patch ? It's the same now. Um, I think that's what you're saying lol. And even looking at the link you posted, you'll see that Terran has historically been beating Protoss moreso than the reverse. Even up until July of this year. So I'm more than happy to take a few months where Protoss has about a 53% win percentage. Don't worry though, it'll come back down like always. Also, next time, please don't completely ignore evidence that I show you. At least I'm looking at your link and responding to it Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 ffadicted wrote:
Watch any pro streams and if they literally go proxy oracle over half their games, I'll eat crow
Anyway I'm not gonna argue with Faust lol he's not really interested in discussing balance, he's obviously just looking to whine and other to join in his whining. It's right, since you play terran on ladder, you have a good notion of what protoss do to me. Watch Byun, Avilo, every pro players. 2 day ago I watched Byun for like 7 hours. He got blink AT LEAST 90% of the time. Check VOD. ...Really? Come on now lol. He's the king of balance whining. Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 08:58 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:54 ffadicted wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2013 08:21 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:17 Faust852 wrote:On December 09 2013 08:05 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 07:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 07:51 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]So what happens if you tweak balance to improve representation in GM and top Terran winrates vP and vZ skyrocket to 60% percent? Just leave it as-is because GM is balanced?
Eventually players would start switch to T because of the imbalance at the top level, regardless of GM representation, and so the pendulum would swing towards Terran over-representation.
Unequal representation can be a symptom of an imbalanced game, but if things are balanced at the top level, it means pretty much nothing. I dont give a fucking shit about the pro scene. I didnt pay for this game for pros to play a balanced game, I payed for it so that I could play a balanced and FUN game. Given that protoss has literally 20 earlygame options where terran has literally 2 doesnt make for an enjoyable experience, and anyone with a brain realizes that. Were already seeing pros switching to protoss and foreign terrans having zero impact, but surely that is just a coincidence just like its a coincidence that gm is 44% protoss and 23% terran. So you don't care about balance. Got it. The skill levels of you and everybody else will always constantly be in flux. It's pretty much impossible to make things balanced at all skill levels of play, so having three different races with different strengths and weaknesses will create many, many different thresholds for one race being easier or harder or better or worse or whatever than the other(s). And what about the Protosses that play against T players in GM with good winrates vP? If you nerf P/buff T, you screw over P players that have to play against those already good T. Your desires are inherently selfish. Balancing for any level of play other than the top will create imbalances at the top level, and additionally create a bunch of players with a different set of problems than you that now have an unfair game. You don't want Blizzard to make things better for the game, you want them to make things better for you. The sooner you admit it and acknowledge it, the sooner you can stop whining here. The game can be balance a different skill level of play. See March 2012 where everything was 50% at pro, and no one cried about GM or Master. Then patchqueen came. See October 2013, stats were close to 50% at pro level, GM was closer to 30% for T, and noone cried. Than PatchOracleNerfMine came. Indeed. Theres this random assumption that you EITHER balance at Taeja and Dear level OR that you have 33% of each race in Grandmaster and that there cant be anything in between. Theres CLEARLY a problem with protoss earlygame options, which, while not necessarily affecting Taeja and the likes on a good day, has a hugely detrimental effect on tvp for anyone below 250apm. And to see protoss come in here and pretend that nothing is amiss when we see such a huge discrepancy between the races when it comes to viable strats is the biggest joke of it all. If Grandmaster was made up of 44% terran and 23% protoss wed never hear the fucking end of it. So stop being such fucking hypocrites. Why would I care what the race distribution of GM was as long as each race was winning an even percentage of the time? Perhaps I'd have fewer role models to emulate or watch, but there's still a few hundred Terrans in GM, and not all top players play GM anyway. You ranting about things and justifying them by saying "Well if the tables were turned, you would rant too" doesn't actually validate your claims, because there's no evidence that we would be complaining about how not having fun = imbalanced, or how having a hundred fewer players of Race X means that Race X is necessarily being discriminated against. It's fine that you care more about the balance of the racial distribution than you do the results of the games, but holy cow, looking at these last few posts of yours... you're really, really angry :/ 1. Winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%. That tells us nothing 2. Someone has forgotten the sad zealot fanclub. Protoss players whined about terran being op all the fucking time back in the day, and they were right it was op and terran was nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed again. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed. And nerfed... Call me when terran has 5 players in Code S and 1 in Ro16 lol Starcraft will never reach levels of imbalance like the sad zealot GomTvT broodlord imbafestor times. And that's a damn good thing, we don't want to go there ever again for any race. I don't think anyone is denying terran is clearly at a little disadvantage right now, but it's pretty obvious the people whining in this thread are over exagerating it a lot to validate their ladder losses which are likely due to trivial things like supply blocks, poor army control and sub-par macro. The changes needed to balance top level TvP are very small, like PO tweeks and small late game tweeks to terran's effectiveness Lol "no ones is denying"? Have you read the thread at all? Tell Plansix and his platinum buddies that rofl. PvT is at a 55% win rate for Protoss at this moment ( http://aligulac.com/reports/balance/ ), because a new patch that helped Protoss and hurt Terran just kicked in. There's always an early reaction to new patches. The metagame accommodates the new buffs and nerfs, and then in a month or two we see most bumps get ironed out, because people learn how to deal with the new strategies that have emerged. It's not the end of the world, as was shown earlier. Terrans are still winning tournaments as frequently as Protoss and Zerg (cited earlier).
I was wrong for the 1st quote because I missinterpreted patch 1.4.3 for the queenpatch.
I don't care about Avilo's persona, but what he plays against, which is proxy oracle or blink almost every games. And he's one of the most intensive streamer so he's a good sample.
|
On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:40 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]How do you introduce those options in a way that doesn't disrupt current balance, though? The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes.
|
On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:44 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
The way I already told you, make strats that are viable but no more powerful than the current ones are. Introduce more options while not making them more powerful than the current ones are. Youre assuming more options means more "power", in which case youve proven my point since protoss has the most earlygame options BY FAR. You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point. Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes.
Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost?
|
On December 09 2013 09:42 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:47 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]You keep listing things you want done, but not how to do them. That's the entire point.
Pay me a salary and I will. Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes. Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost? Hellbats 2-shot zerglings just as well without blueflame as they do with it, so for a main push they're about as effective as they've always been. The "blueflame nerf killed hellbat pushes vs. z" myth is about as mythy as it gets. I would also agree with a transformation servos cost reduction. It's an underused ability with extremely limited combat utility, so as far as I'm concerned there's no real point to having it cost so much. Given the tech lab + factory requirement (so double factory required for decent hellion/hellbat reduction), it should help mech far more than bio.
|
On December 09 2013 09:51 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:42 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 08:48 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
Pay me a salary and I will.
Yawn. Conversation over. cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes. Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost? Hellbats 2-shot zerglings just as well without blueflame as they do with it, so for a main push they're about as effective as they've always been. The "blueflame nerf killed hellbat pushes vs. z" myth is about as mythy as it gets. I would also agree with a transformation servos cost reduction. It's an underused ability with extremely limited combat utility, so as far as I'm concerned there's no real point to having it cost so much. Given the tech lab + factory requirement (so double factory required for decent hellion/hellbat reduction), it should help mech far more than bio.
I know about the lings, but roaches are much more effective against unupgraded hellbats. Anyway it all sounds fair. See, im not unreasonable. All I want is options with my race, something which is clearly lacking. My winrate in tvp with bio is about the same as my tvz winrate with mech (I only play mech now), yet I never complain about tvz because even when I lose it feels completely fair.
|
On December 09 2013 09:54 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:51 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:42 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]Yawn. Conversation over.
cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes. Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost? Hellbats 2-shot zerglings just as well without blueflame as they do with it, so for a main push they're about as effective as they've always been. The "blueflame nerf killed hellbat pushes vs. z" myth is about as mythy as it gets. I would also agree with a transformation servos cost reduction. It's an underused ability with extremely limited combat utility, so as far as I'm concerned there's no real point to having it cost so much. Given the tech lab + factory requirement (so double factory required for decent hellion/hellbat reduction), it should help mech far more than bio. Sounds fair. See, im not unreasonable. All I want is options with my race, something which is clearly lacking. My winrate in tvp with bio is about the same as my tvz winrate with mech (I only play mech now), yet I never complain about tvz because even when I lose it feels completely fair. While I do think those changes should come into play, I'm not sure how much it would help vP. I think you'd need some more intensive changes to really open up Terran's "viable" options against P that could have a pretty big impact on both TvZ and TvT. That's where the bulk of my concern lies.
|
On December 09 2013 09:54 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:51 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:42 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 08:52 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]Yawn. Conversation over.
cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes. Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost? Hellbats 2-shot zerglings just as well without blueflame as they do with it, so for a main push they're about as effective as they've always been. The "blueflame nerf killed hellbat pushes vs. z" myth is about as mythy as it gets. I would also agree with a transformation servos cost reduction. It's an underused ability with extremely limited combat utility, so as far as I'm concerned there's no real point to having it cost so much. Given the tech lab + factory requirement (so double factory required for decent hellion/hellbat reduction), it should help mech far more than bio. I know about the lings, but roaches are much more effective against unupgraded hellbats. Blueflame vs. no blueflame is no different for roaches. Blueflame just adds on +12(+1) light damage for hellbats, which has no effect on roaches.
|
On December 09 2013 09:57 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:54 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:51 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:42 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:35 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:26 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:23 Snusmumriken wrote:On December 09 2013 09:21 RampancyTW wrote:On December 09 2013 09:04 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
cheap cop-out for "I know im wrong" No, that's what "Pay me a salary and I will" is. I HAVE NO GOOD SUGGESTIONS BUT TOTALLY WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME MONEY I think they call that a con Or maybe a scam No but ive already told you exactly how you do it. You somehow expect me to map out the details of it and im asking why should I? Either the amount of options means imbalance or they do not. If they do, then clearly protoss is imba. If they do not, then surely we can add more options for terran, just like we have for protoss, without scewing balance in the proscene. It all comes down to how strong the options are, not how many (bar a ridiculous amount, which protoss is rapidly approaching I must say). Again, how do you simply add more options to Terran? You'd have to tweak all sorts of units and timings without having an impact on other matchups. Simply saying to add more options contributes nothing. Actual thought-out suggestions for changes contributes something. You seem to accept nothing less than a complete mapped out profile for how to create diversity in a matchup that currently only is so at one end. That takes time. So fucking pay me then if thats what you want. Heres once suggestion: remove biotag from hellbats and revert the transformation upgrade. Also make armories cheaper. That would be a start. One of the reasons for the transformation upgrade in the first place was so that Terrans couldn't just immediately turn their initial poking/creep-containing hellions into a super strong push the moment the armory finished. I do think reducing armory cost would be a good place to start, because 50/50 is a negligible difference to a single-armory bio build, but 100/100 makes a pretty big difference to any attempted 2-armory mech build. That's definitely a change I'm on board with now that hellbat transformation requires an upgrade and maps are far too big for thor rushes. Yes but that was before hellbats required blueflame for their full potential. Maybe youre right tho as it, even though easily countered by some roaches, would force the zerg to go at least a few roaches every tvz. How about just keeping the upgrade but make it very cheap so that it becomes a matter of timing and not cost? Hellbats 2-shot zerglings just as well without blueflame as they do with it, so for a main push they're about as effective as they've always been. The "blueflame nerf killed hellbat pushes vs. z" myth is about as mythy as it gets. I would also agree with a transformation servos cost reduction. It's an underused ability with extremely limited combat utility, so as far as I'm concerned there's no real point to having it cost so much. Given the tech lab + factory requirement (so double factory required for decent hellion/hellbat reduction), it should help mech far more than bio. Sounds fair. See, im not unreasonable. All I want is options with my race, something which is clearly lacking. My winrate in tvp with bio is about the same as my tvz winrate with mech (I only play mech now), yet I never complain about tvz because even when I lose it feels completely fair. While I do think those changes should come into play, I'm not sure how much it would help vP. I think you'd need some more intensive changes to really open up Terran's "viable" options against P that could have a pretty big impact on both TvZ and TvT. That's where the bulk of my concern lies.
I disagree. For example if you make the msc have slightly less range then tankpushes are all of a sudden actually somewhat viable again. Another thing would be to give the msc less vision making blink allins more risky.
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
Add options to Terran?
Terran have lots of cool builds and options. They don't work, due to the MSC being too good as a catch-all defensive unit
|
On December 09 2013 10:07 Wombat_NI wrote:
Add options to Terran?
Terran have lots of cool builds and options. They don't work, due to the MSC being too good as a catch-all defensive unit
sacrilege, MSC is perfectly fine! balance says 50-50
jk
|
On December 09 2013 09:00 Glorfindel! wrote:Thoughts from a Terran player - Around 1000 points on EU and AM.
The game must be both fun and balanced.As a Terran player today when I play ladder I am at exactly 50% vs Protoss at EU, around 65% at AM. So for me, its hard to whine on the win ratios. But what I can balance on is how fun every TvP is for me. When I face Protoss I have to make my whole build around having six marines at the time the first Oracle can hit me. Anything else and I just have autoloss vs probably the most common build on ladder at the moment. That limits me to very few builds that is safe, good and reliable. As a Terran player, this ends up with me going the exactly same build, game after game, after game which in the long run makes the game extremly boring to play.
I do not feel like I can influence the pace of the game.Every single desicion being made untill Medivacs are out are decided by the Protoss player. As a Terran player, I have no way what so ever of forcing a Protoss player into any direction. I have to scout, react and then defend whatever is thrown at me. If I scout nothing is thrown at me, I still have no way of doing any damage due to Photon Overcharge. The gameplay in the current meta with Terran not being able to influence the pace of the game or force the Protoss player to react at makes it feel very boring to play and the whole idea with a Strategy game is lost for me. Sure its fun to scout, react and play a good game. However, it would be fun if I also could feel like what I did actually made a difference for the other player. As of now - Protoss players can do almost any build blind and just negate scouting at all.
This makes it easy for bad RTS players to play Protoss to a certain level on ladder.As of now Protoss quite a few options in every matchup for All-Ins. All of those all-ins are extremply powerful and forces to opponent to react. I will use TvP as an example. Blinkstalker All-in: Forces the Terran player to give up the natural and the whole game comes down to just bunker placement, not slip on macro and hope to not get out of position. A Protoss player on ladder can force this situation EVERY single game against a Terran. Being hopeless at macro and having no sence for the game what so ever. Just do the all in and get good at it and you will win alot of ladder games. The same is true for DT-rushes, Oracle-proxies (where a single Oracle sometimes just straight up wins the game if you miss a marine for a second or two).
The Protoss player here can force certain situations that neglet what for an example TvZ is all about - strong mechanics, micro in maxed out situations and desicion making, multitasking and all of this.By just allining again, and again and again non of the many factors deciding who is a good RTS player (mechanics, macro, multitasking) is just negated and the game turns down to a single situation. The game becomes very limited. Your decisions becomes very limited. Because of that you can actually be quite bad as a Protoss player, but still be very good on ladder. Protoss as a race has the ability to negate many of the things RTS is generally about.
This basically hits the nail on the head. Thank you for verbalizing so well what I have been feeling for awhile now. 
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
Glorfinell's post was pretty nice, I second this. Definitely preferable to some of the more piteous whining for sure
|
On December 09 2013 11:19 Kyrao wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 09:00 Glorfindel! wrote:Thoughts from a Terran player - Around 1000 points on EU and AM.
The game must be both fun and balanced.As a Terran player today when I play ladder I am at exactly 50% vs Protoss at EU, around 65% at AM. So for me, its hard to whine on the win ratios. But what I can balance on is how fun every TvP is for me. When I face Protoss I have to make my whole build around having six marines at the time the first Oracle can hit me. Anything else and I just have autoloss vs probably the most common build on ladder at the moment. That limits me to very few builds that is safe, good and reliable. As a Terran player, this ends up with me going the exactly same build, game after game, after game which in the long run makes the game extremly boring to play.
I do not feel like I can influence the pace of the game.Every single desicion being made untill Medivacs are out are decided by the Protoss player. As a Terran player, I have no way what so ever of forcing a Protoss player into any direction. I have to scout, react and then defend whatever is thrown at me. If I scout nothing is thrown at me, I still have no way of doing any damage due to Photon Overcharge. The gameplay in the current meta with Terran not being able to influence the pace of the game or force the Protoss player to react at makes it feel very boring to play and the whole idea with a Strategy game is lost for me. Sure its fun to scout, react and play a good game. However, it would be fun if I also could feel like what I did actually made a difference for the other player. As of now - Protoss players can do almost any build blind and just negate scouting at all.
This makes it easy for bad RTS players to play Protoss to a certain level on ladder.As of now Protoss quite a few options in every matchup for All-Ins. All of those all-ins are extremply powerful and forces to opponent to react. I will use TvP as an example. Blinkstalker All-in: Forces the Terran player to give up the natural and the whole game comes down to just bunker placement, not slip on macro and hope to not get out of position. A Protoss player on ladder can force this situation EVERY single game against a Terran. Being hopeless at macro and having no sence for the game what so ever. Just do the all in and get good at it and you will win alot of ladder games. The same is true for DT-rushes, Oracle-proxies (where a single Oracle sometimes just straight up wins the game if you miss a marine for a second or two).
The Protoss player here can force certain situations that neglet what for an example TvZ is all about - strong mechanics, micro in maxed out situations and desicion making, multitasking and all of this.By just allining again, and again and again non of the many factors deciding who is a good RTS player (mechanics, macro, multitasking) is just negated and the game turns down to a single situation. The game becomes very limited. Your decisions becomes very limited. Because of that you can actually be quite bad as a Protoss player, but still be very good on ladder. Protoss as a race has the ability to negate many of the things RTS is generally about. This basically hits the nail on the head. Thank you for verbalizing so well what I have been feeling for awhile now.
Perfect. I still have no idea why any Protoss opens up in any way other than some aggressive build on ladder unless they literally want to make the game harder for themselves.
|
imo Blink stalker all in is problematic only because of time warp.
Terran can deal with blink stalker if time warp isn't there to prevent the bio coming up to push the Msc back to stop the high ground vision.
Time warp makes it so that it is incredibly easy for the protoss to identity one mis positioning (which happens because Terran will need to reposition his units to deal with blink stalkers) and just pick off a huge pack of units
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
