|
I think most of us are not eligible to discuss balance, because our own performance of the game and even our understanding of the game, including watching Day[9] and high-level replays with high-level commentary is below that point where the remaining imbalance already matters.
I did like to hear Artosis and Idra talking about balance in their show "Imbalanced", but most things were beyond the point were I could confirm or even truly understand what they said.
Some guys in this thread label certain things "bad design". Which game did they design, as a proof they actually know a thing about game design?
In this thread some guys compare the casting range of units, but it's not okay to just compare range and cost and availability (tech-wise) of units. The entire thing is way more complex. Even "fix" proposals are given in this thread. Who really can see all thing which would change if a proposed "fix" would actually be applied with a new patch?
Do we have all the test maps Blizzard has? Do we have the mathematical models? Do we have the input of pro players? Do we have the experience to balance a game?
|
I'm not sure if this point has been raised before as I haven't gone through all 90 odd pages of replies, but surely a 8% difference in win/loss at high level is very significant, as most of the games will be won/lost by a relatively large difference in skill, tilting the win% of a race towards 50%, so really only maybe 30% of the games are between players of near identical skill in which race imbalance is a large enough factor to decide the win.
I'm pulling numbers out of the air to make a point, but with a variation in skill level, 8% more wins is a lot more significant than if all players were of identical ability, as most games will be won regardless of race balance. Taking the 30% number I plucked out of the air earlier for example means an 8% difference in win/loss is really nearer 25%
I might be completely wrong btw, so please feel free to explain how I made a big logic mistake
|
On September 11 2011 17:46 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 17:05 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to? No, it hasn't been around for months. Show me a single replay where Zerg goes fast third and 100+ supply lair, because I know Nestea and Losira stayed on 2 base before last July. Even if you disagree, you cannot deny that Zerg's have been absolutely crushing FFE play recently with super fast thirds. Call it whatever you want, but right now the Zerg metagame has figured out a way to handle FFE. Either Protoss will figure out a better way to make FFE work (like huk did vs nestea in the showmatches, by goin macro instead of harass), or Protoss will stop FFE. This season the only FFE to win was MC vs Kryix, where MC did an all-in vs a sub-par Zerg who executed his build horribly (no drones, hydras, lair and fast third before 60 supply, wtf). It wasn't like Zerg made infestors every time, it wasn't that Zerg dropped every time, it was Zerg outplayed the opening and found a hole in that build. So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us. I told you why. Zerg assumed that if Protoss went stargate, their third would be denied. And often times when they tried, it was. Only recently have we seen Zerg take thirds in spite of stargate, and the efficiency which Zerg has held stargate this season is unprecedented. Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later: I didn't insult the race, I insulted players. There are extremely capable protoss players. In fact, the number of godly Protoss, the complete lack of 'okay (by GSL standards) Protoss, and just high number of shitty Protoss, is much like Zerg. There's really only 2 good Zergs, 2-3 other Zergs showing great promise (but have flaws, leenock and DRG), and then a ton of shitty Zergs. I would say Protoss has more better players than Zerg does, we just have THE best player, and a close 2nd. Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did. MC showed us his glorious PvZ, he just didn't get matched up against Nestea or Losira or DRG or Leenock, really the only 'good' Zerg right now in the GSL. And Alicia went with blink as a follow up because he pretty much already lost the game already (DT opening did zero damage, and then Leenock was able to get his third). There wasn't really anything Alicia could've done when his DT's did absolutely zero damage, I'm sure he thought he would at least do something. He took a risk, and paid for it. He's a great protoss player, but Leenock is one of the few great Zergs as well. Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time! We see that when Protoss plays macro, they do extremely well in the GSL. That's why I say Protoss should go 3 gate sentry, or similar macro play. There were quite a few high level PvZs in the GSTL where Protoss went macro, and rolled Zerg. One example is Leenock vs... (forgot his name) on TalDarim, and Zerg was supposedly ahead in an unlosable position. But the Protoss simply macro'd on, and won. Right now a lot of Protoss are playing risky, and doing builds they thought were safe. For fucks sake, if what I'm saying is so alien to you, tell me, did oGsInca play smart? Or did he play exactly as Idra would have put it? By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply. I didn't edit out shit, I added to the post. I don't know what you think I'm going back on, and I never said it was OP. I was merely replying to somenoe saying carriers were worthless, I replied saying they don't have a place because their use is to kill mass siege tanks in PvT (like popular in BW), and that Carrier/Void, which is ridiculously impossible to get, just liek Ultra/BL/Queen is unstoppable, once out, is pretty fucking unstoppable. I don't know what's so disagreeable about this, and I really don't give a shit, because I don't think Carrier/VR is a problem, I don't think it's imbalanced, it's a theorycraft build that's only good on paper. Anyways, you can't deny that Protoss is taking a risk when going stargate or DT. If you claim that Protoss must always go some harass opening as such, then you might as well say "Zerg units kill Protoss too well" which is obviously ridiculous. Right now Protoss might as well be going 4 gate every game - it's risky, it could win, but if Zerg knows what's up, you lose. Protoss can simply play less risky, it's not that hard to figure out. They did very coin flip builds this season with stargate and DT, and the Zergs were prepared for it. Insisting that Protoss must open stargate is like insisting Terran must open cloaked banshees. It's ridiculous, and only works when Zerg is surprised. If they know it's coming, the P will be behind, as we saw in literalyl every ZvP this season. I think you don't understand very well the stargate builds Protoss players use against Zerg. Let's take the MC build (1 gate FE stargate). It has been mainly designed to be safe against roach ling all ins. The nice follow up is to have complete map control for a good amount of time. But deny the third? Sure, they try, but they know that they most likely won't deny shit. If they do it's just a bonus, but they do not expect to do huge damage. So yeah, MC will pick up a queen here, kill a popping tumor there and shut down tower vision, but nothing more. To expect a reaction from Zerg aside from 1 spore crawler and a few extra queens, you must go double stargate and commit way more (one example is Trickster vs DRG at MLG). You're completely wrong in thinking that stargate openings (with one single stargate, mind you) are coinflippy, in fact, most of the time, Protoss won't actually care if you scout it or not (it's always better to keep your opponent in the dark, but you know what I'm talking about, it's not like scouting a dark shrine or a 2port banshees or a hatch cancel). Now, your point still stands. It may very well be a bad opening that Zerg can somehow punish. But it's not considered as a "cheese" or even a "harass based" opening, it's very much the safest opening we have. The problem is that it's maybe too safe, as you commit to units and tech that won't be useful in midgame and don't do enough damage with it. Edit: And another thing, contrary to popular zerg belief (:p), Zerg didn't learn to "deal with stargate" or "figure out stargate openings", spore crawler burrow time was reduced greatly as a buff. Moving spore crawlers are not vulnerable anymore to a 1 void ray snipe. That's why stargate openings have lost their edge nowadays, not sheer zerg genius, sorry :/
Roach/Ling all-ins are very easy to scout for, but besides that, a lot of Protoss have figured out how to deal with roach/ling with extra cannons. I understand what you are saying, but a lot of Protoss at the GSL made more than 1 void ray, or more than 4 air units.
But, point taken. As for spore crawler buff, maybe that's why Zerg are owning stargate. But either way, stargate openings have become extremely ineffectual against Zerg, and Zerg have responded to stargate play much differently this season than the last 2.
|
Korean winrates PvZ are <30%. I can't possibly understand why zergs are complaining about protoss being too strong. We want balance, not one race being stronger. You don't whine about zerg being better than terran, so why whine about protoss being better than zerg?
The problem with protoss is that it has design issues, which cause all the strength to be in colossus, forcefields and templar. Gateway units are terribly weak and their upgrades hard to get, this needs to change.
Warpgates make it so that opponents have no defenders advantage, which means gateway units also have to be weak because otherwise all ins are too strong.
The results are protoss not being able to keep up with zerg macro by doing macro and/or punishing it, so you get situations where zerg has 2x the amount or workers and protoss relies on 2base colossus pushes to have a chance.
Honestly, switch charge and warpgates. Change charge cost to 100/100. Remove 5 seconds from zealot and stalker build time in gateways. Add KA with +15 energy and 25% regen rate. Make templars a bit faster. Make shield upgrades cheaper, and let them ignore a percentage of emp. For example +1 shields means -30% emp damage, +2 shields -40% and +3 -50% (not for energy though). Now increase feedback range to 10 so they can compete with emp range. Make shields not count as armored, but as psionic-light. Make stalkers get +1(+1) on weapons upgrades. Make fleet beacons cheaper and faster to make. Make mothership faster to make and make it's abilities better. Make carriers build faster, give interceptors base armor, let them regenerate inside of carriers and increase their damage with 1 or 2. Give zealots 60 shields again and make their base speed just a little bit faster than workers. Add the observatory for 50/50, allow it to build observers and upgrade observer speed if the player has a robo bay. Reduce immortal build speed to 40 seconds so they become a real alternative for colossus.
Now those are a lot of buffs, here come the nerfs. Make forcefield last 5 seconds and have 150 health if not casted in a power field. Make it last 20 seconds if casted in power fields (no hp). Remove colossus and change it to a unit more like the reaver, something that can be microed, isn't ridiculously strong because gateway units are weak, and can't be hit by air.
Another neutral change that might help with blink pushes becoming too strong: allow blink to stack for a maximum of 2x, so you can blink twice with a full cooldown (blink in blink out!), but change the cooldown per blink to 20 seconds, or even more.
I realize this sounds crazy and insane, but please look at the content. Many of the buffs do not crazily overpower units, they make units like carriers useful and allow tech paths to be more open. Effectively removing colossus, forcefields in aggressive play, and early game warpins can justify all those changes to gateway units. I might look biased, but all I really want is a more dynamic and interesting game with more options, like terran has. I play random and just don't think protoss has enough options when compared to terran, zerg also suffers a bit on that area. And before you say I'm crazy, I'm sure it would be fun to try something radical like this on the ptr or through a mod once.
|
On September 12 2011 06:35 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:48 Toadvine wrote:On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla. The "Balance" of BW was pure luck, there was never an intention from the Blizzard of that time to create a balanced multiplayer. In BW many things just somehow lined up, and of course through the dedication and skill of koreans and maps eventually things started to work out.
I honestly think you cant recreate a game similar to broodwars skill requirement (i mean apm AND strategy) in current world market. SC1 was created in a time when all the people were pioners, they didnt get much payd etc. Blizzard at first was just 2 guys struggling to meet the ends until they created warcraft series. At this time i cant see difficult game like starcraft 1 survive, if it were created as new. Hence we have to accept it and move on.
Anyways i hoped somone would have brought up Day9 point about ballance on state of the game. He pointed out that any game will eventually ballance out, no matter how ridicilous it would be. For example if Starcraft 2 is never receive any patch again. Lets say that terran and zerg will be stronger then protoss. Then game would ballance out in a way wich leaves out protoss, hence people would play just terran or zerg. But even that game would be ballanced. Why? Because every player who comes to play has chance to win. In the end balance is just to get equal chances to win, its to get a player, who practices hard and has talent to win (not race, protoss isnt playing nor terran, its the player)..
In the last point current starcraft 2 is doing quiet well, Nestea is extremely talented and practices hard, hence wins, when seemingly zerg is hard and some claim underpowered. Terran has shitloads of good players who win all the time. True protoss is struggling atm, but if you think back, you see that theres been only one real good protoss, MC (arguable).
And i am thinking why the fuck am i posting in ballance forum such a post, since people will ignore it and just talk about infestor nerfage.
|
On September 12 2011 06:46 [F_]aths wrote:
I think most of us are not eligible to discuss balance, because our own performance of the game and even our understanding of the game, including watching Day[9] and high-level replays with high-level commentary is below that point where the remaining imbalance already matters.
I did like to hear Artosis and Idra talking about balance in their show "Imbalanced", but most things were beyond the point were I could confirm or even truly understand what they said.
Some guys in this thread label certain things "bad design". Which game did they design, as a proof they actually know a thing about game design?
In this thread some guys compare the casting range of units, but it's not okay to just compare range and cost and availability (tech-wise) of units. The entire thing is way more complex. Even "fix" proposals are given in this thread. Who really can see all thing which would change if a proposed "fix" would actually be applied with a new patch?
Do we have all the test maps Blizzard has? Do we have the mathematical models? Do we have the input of pro players? Do we have the experience to balance a game?
I've always wondered if there's a formal name for this argument, that there's only "qualified" and "not qualified" with zero room for an intermediate level of experience that could produce valid insights. It seems like it's only ever used to try and stifle productive discussion.
|
This isn't an issue now, but I soon see it coming.... If neural parasite is nerfed to where you cannot use it on massive units, ZvT could get very tough. Hellion/Thor compositions will become insanely strongly. This change really should not happen.
|
Korean winrates PvZ are <30%. I can't possibly understand why zergs are complaining about protoss being too strong. We want balance, not one race being stronger. You don't whine about zerg being better than terran, so why whine about protoss being better than zerg?
Zergs are complaining that mid+ game Protoss is way too strong. Right now Protoss are losing in the early game against Zerg, so the stats show Zerg winning a lot. In this season's GSL, FFE was basically a BO loss, and not a single stargate opening was effective (it always resulted in a 10+ supply lead given to Zerg). Just because one race is losing to 6 pool over and over because they are going nexus first, doesn't mean that the other race's end game isn't OP (to give an analogy).
The problem with protoss is that it has design issues, which cause all the strength to be in colossus, forcefields and templar. Gateway units are terribly weak and their upgrades hard to get, this needs to change.
Warpgates make it so that opponents have no defenders advantage, which means gateway units also have to be weak because otherwise all ins are too strong.
The results are protoss not being able to keep up with zerg macro by doing macro and/or punishing it, so you get situations where zerg has 2x the amount or workers and protoss relies on 2base colossus pushes to have a chance.
It's not like Protoss are losing because they have a bunch of gateway units to defend, and those pesky ling/roaches are just crushing. There wasn't a single roach/ling all-in this season, if I recall correctly (as opposed to 2 seasons ago). Protoss losses have nothing to do with early engagements or warp gate, it has to do with FFE and stargate.
Protoss is always below Zerg in drones, but FFE gives Zerg a free 8:30 pass to macro unharmed. FFE is just not a great build.
Just watch the Nestea games. It's basically a BO loss against a top korean Zerg.
Your proposed changes are almost all TvP though, so whatever. I don't think any amount of buffing is going to make carriers used more - right now they are anti- mass siege tank units, just like in BW. Since Terran prefers bio right now, Protoss doesn't make carriers. It's like saying Broodlords are underpowered and worthless in TvZ if Terran stopped making siege tanks. It's a great unit, it's fine now, but it's role isn't needed in the current metagame.
|
On September 12 2011 08:24 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Korean winrates PvZ are <30%. I can't possibly understand why zergs are complaining about protoss being too strong. We want balance, not one race being stronger. You don't whine about zerg being better than terran, so why whine about protoss being better than zerg? Zergs are complaining that mid+ game Protoss is way too strong. Right now Protoss are losing in the early game against Zerg, so the stats show Zerg winning a lot. In this season's GSL, FFE was basically a BO loss, and not a single stargate opening was effective (it always resulted in a 10+ supply lead given to Zerg). Just because one race is losing to 6 pool over and over because they are going nexus first, doesn't mean that the other race's end game isn't OP (to give an analogy). Show nested quote +The problem with protoss is that it has design issues, which cause all the strength to be in colossus, forcefields and templar. Gateway units are terribly weak and their upgrades hard to get, this needs to change.
Warpgates make it so that opponents have no defenders advantage, which means gateway units also have to be weak because otherwise all ins are too strong.
The results are protoss not being able to keep up with zerg macro by doing macro and/or punishing it, so you get situations where zerg has 2x the amount or workers and protoss relies on 2base colossus pushes to have a chance. It's not like Protoss are losing because they have a bunch of gateway units to defend, and those pesky ling/roaches are just crushing. There wasn't a single roach/ling all-in this season, if I recall correctly (as opposed to 2 seasons ago). Protoss losses have nothing to do with early engagements or warp gate, it has to do with FFE and stargate. Protoss is always below Zerg in drones, but FFE gives Zerg a free 8:30 pass to macro unharmed. FFE is just not a great build. Just watch the Nestea games. It's basically a BO loss against a top korean Zerg. Your proposed changes are almost all TvP though, so whatever. I don't think any amount of buffing is going to make carriers used more - right now they are anti- mass siege tank units, just like in BW. Since Terran prefers bio right now, Protoss doesn't make carriers. It's like saying Broodlords are underpowered and worthless in TvZ if Terran stopped making siege tanks. It's a great unit, it's fine now, but it's role isn't needed in the current metagame.
How can zerg complain protoss midgame is too strong, when protoss always enters the midgame with a strong disadvantage? That's like saying ultras are overpowered against marines at the 2 minute mark, good luck having an ultra out at 2.00. You said it yourself, ffe allows zerg to get 3base, it's a bo loss. Stargates and dt doesn't work, and 3gate means you fall behind in macro so much zerg wins by swarming you. My suggested changes change the things zerg complains about, "mass" colossus and force fields.
I have seen all the games, and basically any build is a BO loss against zerg. Whatever protoss does, they are outmacroed and then destroyed. The problem is how zerg is never in danger of dying to a protoss, because their units and timings are so weak (except colossus, but at this point protoss lost to zerg macro). They are so weak because of warpgates rushes (and colossus/ff), so it has everything to do with early game and warpgates. Protoss has nearly no harass options and can't threaten the zerg macro. Combine that with the wierd mechanic of larva inject! In BW, larva was scarce. Zerglings were strong but cost a lot of larva, you didn't have nearly infinite larva like you do now, which allows zerg to macro so fast.
Many changes affect TvP and make the bioball worse against protoss. I am personally in favor of making mech better against protoss, so both are possible. The metagame can develop with these changes to a game where terran can use mech, and in this case carriers can be used.
|
How can zerg complain protoss midgame is too strong, when protoss always enters the midgame with a strong disadvantage? That's like saying ultras are overpowered against marines at the 2 minute mark, good luck having an ultra out at 2.00. You said it yourself, ffe allows zerg to get 3base, it's a bo loss. Stargates and dt doesn't work, and 3gate means you fall behind in macro so much zerg wins by swarming you. My suggested changes change the things zerg complains about, "mass" colossus and force fields.
If a race enters the mid-game with a strong disadvantage every time, then that may suggest it is UP in early game. It doesn't change the possibility that in the end-game, it is OP.
Your analogy about ultras isn't really a good analogy, but going along with it, it's more like saying Ultralisks are OP against Terran at any point in the game, but good luck getting ultralisks when speed reapers before supply depot exists.
You said it yourself, ffe allows zerg to get 3base, it's a bo loss. Stargates and dt doesn't work, and 3gate means you fall behind in macro so much zerg wins by swarming you. My suggested changes change the things zerg complains about, "mass" colossus and force fields.
I don't know if stargate and DT doesn't work necessarily, it's just risky and recently Zerg find it too predictable an opening. Terran stopped going banshee so much against Zerg for similiar reason.
And I disagree about 3 gate falling behind in macro. It automatically denies a third base by Zerg, and if they try it's extremely risky (you can still go 3 gate sentry expand stargate). From there, it's 2 base vs 2 base, and Zerg is in a pretty bad spot. I have never really seen Zerg get a huge macro advantage over Protoss going 3 gate sentry without going on a limb and taking a super risky third, which more often than not isn't held.
I mean, if you really think 3 gate sentry is such an unviable build, why were so many tournaments won with it? Does that mean Xel Naga Caverns (on which FFE is stupidly risky...) is an imbalanced map for Protoss? Or how about Searing Crater? Any map that you can't FFE on, is it broken for ZvP?
You can also go 1 gate sentry expand too, or 2 gate expand, or nexus first. As long as Zerg doesn't have 3 bases, Protoss is ahead economically.
Now those are a lot of buffs, here come the nerfs. Make forcefield last 5 seconds and have 150 health if not casted in a power field. Make it last 20 seconds if casted in power fields (no hp). Remove colossus and change it to a unit more like the reaver, something that can be microed, isn't ridiculously strong because gateway units are weak, and can't be hit by air.
My suggested changes change the things zerg complains about, "mass" colossus and force fields.
Sure. I mean your changes don't look bad. It's very interesting what you said about FF, and I like the colossi idea. Right now Protoss really doesn't have to micro well with their army, they can sort of a-move a deathball too effectively. I understand Protoss has to micro, and at the top level they do, but Platinum to mid-Masters is just dominated by Protoss who mass up colossi deathballs against Zerg and a-move, and even if they micro, it's obvious they didnt' need to. But it's not like Protoss really has a choice, at the moment the race doesn't really need pro micro in the endgame and that's more a design issue than balance issue.
I have seen all the games, and basically any build is a BO loss against zerg. Whatever protoss does, they are outmacroed and then destroyed. The problem is how zerg is never in danger of dying to a protoss, because their units and timings are so weak (except colossus, but at this point protoss lost to zerg macro). They are so weak because of warpgates rushes (and colossus/ff), so it has everything to do with early game and warpgates. Protoss has nearly no harass options and can't threaten the zerg macro. Combine that with the wierd mechanic of larva inject! In BW, larva was scarce. Zerglings were strong but cost a lot of larva, you didn't have nearly infinite larva like you do now, which allows zerg to macro so fast.
I agree Protoss lacks in harass. They need something like reapers or hellions, right now the only harass Protoss really has is DT and stargate, which are inordinately risky and expensive. I think a better patch change instead of a buff to warp prism health would be to decrease build time, since they are basically free units anyways (200 minerals, no gas) and the main complaint is how they compete with other robo for build time. Maybe make it buildable for nexus or something instead. But this would just be band-aid on the problem that Protoss has no early harass units.
And no, not every bo is a loss against Zerg. Protoss are outmacrod only when they open harass and fail, or if they FFE and Zerg takes a fast third. Any sentry expand keeps Protoss on the same 2 base as Zerg will be. Any game Zerg doesn't take a third against FFE (on maps like Taldarim where there are fucking browderrocks on, FFE is a great opener. slightly Off topic, but if there are rocks on the third then there should be fucking rocks denying a FFE. If the rocks were half the health they currently are, actually, I think that would be great, as fast third is maybe too strong on a large map like that if there were no rocks) thay are behind. Any time Zerg and Protoss are both on 2 base, Zerg is far behind. Note that a fast third only puts Zerg even with Protoss, not ahead.
It's not that a fast third is what wins, it's that Protoss tries to be aggressive and doesn't take a third, and then Zerg holds the 2 base timing push and then pushes back and denies Protoss' third. FFE into third instead of pressure (like 5 gate robo FFE into third instead of all-in pressure like 7 gate) isn't the worst build to do, and could do well against Nestea style fast thirds.
Inject just keeps Zerg even with chrono boost on probes and gateways. It's pretty much the same thing, allows you to keep your production facility count lower (ie less nexii producing probes have same afect as more without chrono).
|
On September 12 2011 06:35 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:48 Toadvine wrote:On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla. The "Balance" of BW was pure luck, there was never an intention from the Blizzard of that time to create a balanced multiplayer. In BW many things just somehow lined up, and of course through the dedication and skill of koreans and maps eventually things started to work out.
There was some intention to create balanced multiplayer. A lot of the units added in BW betray a clear notion of making mass Mutalisks unviable. There was probably no intention of producing a balanced competitive game, but there were steps taken to improve upon vanilla multiplayer.
BW just had an excellent set of core mechanics for the races that took the edge off all the imbalanced stuff they would get at higher tech levels. The reason Psi Storm, Dark Swarm, Irradiate, Spider Mines, Reavers, Lurkers, and so forth, all add up to a balanced game, is that lings, hydras, zealots, dragoons, marines, vultures, goliaths, are all roughly equally powerful, and interact in a very straighforward manner. There's none of SC2's "Marines are better than everything else, so we have these timings and this tech that will allow you to kill Marines effectively if you do the right build and get this upgrade in time, and...".
I have no idea why they decided to have such volatile and complicated relationships between core units in SC2.
On September 12 2011 07:32 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 17:46 ZenithM wrote:On September 11 2011 17:05 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to? No, it hasn't been around for months. Show me a single replay where Zerg goes fast third and 100+ supply lair, because I know Nestea and Losira stayed on 2 base before last July. Even if you disagree, you cannot deny that Zerg's have been absolutely crushing FFE play recently with super fast thirds. Call it whatever you want, but right now the Zerg metagame has figured out a way to handle FFE. Either Protoss will figure out a better way to make FFE work (like huk did vs nestea in the showmatches, by goin macro instead of harass), or Protoss will stop FFE. This season the only FFE to win was MC vs Kryix, where MC did an all-in vs a sub-par Zerg who executed his build horribly (no drones, hydras, lair and fast third before 60 supply, wtf). It wasn't like Zerg made infestors every time, it wasn't that Zerg dropped every time, it was Zerg outplayed the opening and found a hole in that build. So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us. I told you why. Zerg assumed that if Protoss went stargate, their third would be denied. And often times when they tried, it was. Only recently have we seen Zerg take thirds in spite of stargate, and the efficiency which Zerg has held stargate this season is unprecedented. Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later: I didn't insult the race, I insulted players. There are extremely capable protoss players. In fact, the number of godly Protoss, the complete lack of 'okay (by GSL standards) Protoss, and just high number of shitty Protoss, is much like Zerg. There's really only 2 good Zergs, 2-3 other Zergs showing great promise (but have flaws, leenock and DRG), and then a ton of shitty Zergs. I would say Protoss has more better players than Zerg does, we just have THE best player, and a close 2nd. Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did. MC showed us his glorious PvZ, he just didn't get matched up against Nestea or Losira or DRG or Leenock, really the only 'good' Zerg right now in the GSL. And Alicia went with blink as a follow up because he pretty much already lost the game already (DT opening did zero damage, and then Leenock was able to get his third). There wasn't really anything Alicia could've done when his DT's did absolutely zero damage, I'm sure he thought he would at least do something. He took a risk, and paid for it. He's a great protoss player, but Leenock is one of the few great Zergs as well. Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time! We see that when Protoss plays macro, they do extremely well in the GSL. That's why I say Protoss should go 3 gate sentry, or similar macro play. There were quite a few high level PvZs in the GSTL where Protoss went macro, and rolled Zerg. One example is Leenock vs... (forgot his name) on TalDarim, and Zerg was supposedly ahead in an unlosable position. But the Protoss simply macro'd on, and won. Right now a lot of Protoss are playing risky, and doing builds they thought were safe. For fucks sake, if what I'm saying is so alien to you, tell me, did oGsInca play smart? Or did he play exactly as Idra would have put it? By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply. I didn't edit out shit, I added to the post. I don't know what you think I'm going back on, and I never said it was OP. I was merely replying to somenoe saying carriers were worthless, I replied saying they don't have a place because their use is to kill mass siege tanks in PvT (like popular in BW), and that Carrier/Void, which is ridiculously impossible to get, just liek Ultra/BL/Queen is unstoppable, once out, is pretty fucking unstoppable. I don't know what's so disagreeable about this, and I really don't give a shit, because I don't think Carrier/VR is a problem, I don't think it's imbalanced, it's a theorycraft build that's only good on paper. Anyways, you can't deny that Protoss is taking a risk when going stargate or DT. If you claim that Protoss must always go some harass opening as such, then you might as well say "Zerg units kill Protoss too well" which is obviously ridiculous. Right now Protoss might as well be going 4 gate every game - it's risky, it could win, but if Zerg knows what's up, you lose. Protoss can simply play less risky, it's not that hard to figure out. They did very coin flip builds this season with stargate and DT, and the Zergs were prepared for it. Insisting that Protoss must open stargate is like insisting Terran must open cloaked banshees. It's ridiculous, and only works when Zerg is surprised. If they know it's coming, the P will be behind, as we saw in literalyl every ZvP this season. I think you don't understand very well the stargate builds Protoss players use against Zerg. Let's take the MC build (1 gate FE stargate). It has been mainly designed to be safe against roach ling all ins. The nice follow up is to have complete map control for a good amount of time. But deny the third? Sure, they try, but they know that they most likely won't deny shit. If they do it's just a bonus, but they do not expect to do huge damage. So yeah, MC will pick up a queen here, kill a popping tumor there and shut down tower vision, but nothing more. To expect a reaction from Zerg aside from 1 spore crawler and a few extra queens, you must go double stargate and commit way more (one example is Trickster vs DRG at MLG). You're completely wrong in thinking that stargate openings (with one single stargate, mind you) are coinflippy, in fact, most of the time, Protoss won't actually care if you scout it or not (it's always better to keep your opponent in the dark, but you know what I'm talking about, it's not like scouting a dark shrine or a 2port banshees or a hatch cancel). Now, your point still stands. It may very well be a bad opening that Zerg can somehow punish. But it's not considered as a "cheese" or even a "harass based" opening, it's very much the safest opening we have. The problem is that it's maybe too safe, as you commit to units and tech that won't be useful in midgame and don't do enough damage with it. Edit: And another thing, contrary to popular zerg belief (:p), Zerg didn't learn to "deal with stargate" or "figure out stargate openings", spore crawler burrow time was reduced greatly as a buff. Moving spore crawlers are not vulnerable anymore to a 1 void ray snipe. That's why stargate openings have lost their edge nowadays, not sheer zerg genius, sorry :/ Roach/Ling all-ins are very easy to scout for, but besides that, a lot of Protoss have figured out how to deal with roach/ling with extra cannons. I understand what you are saying, but a lot of Protoss at the GSL made more than 1 void ray, or more than 4 air units. But, point taken. As for spore crawler buff, maybe that's why Zerg are owning stargate. But either way, stargate openings have become extremely ineffectual against Zerg, and Zerg have responded to stargate play much differently this season than the last 2.
Roach/Ling all-ins aren't easy to scout at all, if the Zerg actively denies worker scouts. Part of the reason you don't see them anymore is that Protosses have started playing a bit safer, have gotten better at handling the actual attack, and also because there's no reason for the Zerg to take such a huge risk when they can just take a quick third and be way ahead in the midgame.
|
On September 12 2011 06:35 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:48 Toadvine wrote:On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla. The "Balance" of BW was pure luck, there was never an intention from the Blizzard of that time to create a balanced multiplayer. In BW many things just somehow lined up, and of course through the dedication and skill of koreans and maps eventually things started to work out.
To my understanding most people thought the game was fairly balanced except for pvz. Pvz was considered z favored on land maps and p favored on island maps.
|
Roach/Ling all-ins aren't easy to scout at all, if the Zerg actively denies worker scouts. Part of the reason you don't see them anymore is that Protosses have started playing a bit safer, have gotten better at handling the actual attack, and also because there's no reason for the Zerg to take such a huge risk when they can just take a quick third and be way ahead in the midgame.
Roach/ling is horribly all-in for Zerg, and if Protoss just makes a 2nd cannon it's stopped. It's also heavily map dependent - on XNC it will always work (no one FFE on that map though...), but maps like Shakuras you can get away with a single cannon. And it's pretty easy to scout for - no natural base before lings, roach warren with your probe, etc. The losira/nestea style roach/ling is 35 roach warren, which you can see with hallucination.
It's a horrible build, and Zerg has no way to recover from it. Zerg stopped doing it because it's a shitty build and you're just hoping Protoss plays incompetently and has horrible building placement. And it's not even good as aggression, you are completely all-in with just making 7 roaches and there's no way to recover if you don't at least kill a nexus.
|
On August 16 2011 06:57 Techno wrote:
Rules:
1. Balance Discussion, not Balance Whining
This means no "OMG TERRAN OP!" posts. Make specific claims about what you think is imbalanced and how they could be addressed. It's quite obvious to most that the game is not drastically imbalanced so acting like it is will be frowned upon.
ll those great things Terran can do.
What're your thoughts?
Speaking of Which,
I'm trying to find the amazing Terran Imbalance post that was made near the beginning of this thread, the one thats nearly an entire page long and people were getting angry everyone was quoting it without spoilers.
Where did it go? can't find it for the life of me, If you read it you know the one I'm talking about.
|
Do you mean TENTHSTs post on page 8? Its the second post on that page, long fucker
|
On September 12 2011 11:09 Intricate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 06:57 Techno wrote:
Rules:
1. Balance Discussion, not Balance Whining
This means no "OMG TERRAN OP!" posts. Make specific claims about what you think is imbalanced and how they could be addressed. It's quite obvious to most that the game is not drastically imbalanced so acting like it is will be frowned upon.
ll those great things Terran can do.
What're your thoughts? Speaking of Which, I'm trying to find the amazing Terran Imbalance post that was made near the beginning of this thread, the one thats nearly an entire page long and people were getting angry everyone was quoting it without spoilers. Where did it go? can't find it for the life of me, If you read it you know the one I'm talking about.
It's on page 8. And a very good read too.
|
On September 12 2011 07:50 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Anyways i hoped somone would have brought up Day9 point about ballance on state of the game. He pointed out that any game will eventually ballance out, no matter how ridicilous it would be. For example if Starcraft 2 is never receive any patch again. Lets say that terran and zerg will be stronger then protoss. Then game would ballance out in a way wich leaves out protoss, hence people would play just terran or zerg. But even that game would be ballanced. Why? Because every player who comes to play has chance to win. In the end balance is just to get equal chances to win, its to get a player, who practices hard and has talent to win (not race, protoss isnt playing nor terran, its the player)..
.
Nobody really wants to see endless TvTs with just a couple TvZs and ZvZs sprinkled in. Perfect balance is a means, not an end. It's variety that makes SC2 a good spectator esport. Any game would be balanced if they had only one race.
|
On September 12 2011 07:50 LeibSaiLeib wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 06:35 Elefanto wrote:On September 12 2011 05:48 Toadvine wrote:On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla. The "Balance" of BW was pure luck, there was never an intention from the Blizzard of that time to create a balanced multiplayer. In BW many things just somehow lined up, and of course through the dedication and skill of koreans and maps eventually things started to work out. I honestly think you cant recreate a game similar to broodwars skill requirement (i mean apm AND strategy) in current world market. SC1 was created in a time when all the people were pioners, they didnt get much payd etc. Blizzard at first was just 2 guys struggling to meet the ends until they created warcraft series. At this time i cant see difficult game like starcraft 1 survive, if it were created as new. Hence we have to accept it and move on. Anyways i hoped somone would have brought up Day9 point about ballance on state of the game. He pointed out that any game will eventually ballance out, no matter how ridicilous it would be. For example if Starcraft 2 is never receive any patch again. Lets say that terran and zerg will be stronger then protoss. Then game would ballance out in a way wich leaves out protoss, hence people would play just terran or zerg. But even that game would be ballanced. Why? Because every player who comes to play has chance to win. In the end balance is just to get equal chances to win, its to get a player, who practices hard and has talent to win (not race, protoss isnt playing nor terran, its the player).. In the last point current starcraft 2 is doing quiet well, Nestea is extremely talented and practices hard, hence wins, when seemingly zerg is hard and some claim underpowered. Terran has shitloads of good players who win all the time. True protoss is struggling atm, but if you think back, you see that theres been only one real good protoss, MC (arguable). And i am thinking why the fuck am i posting in ballance forum such a post, since people will ignore it and just talk about infestor nerfage.
except for the fact that day9 says that you're not versing the player you're versing the race, also i dont see how one race becoming obsolete is balance, thats just removing a third of the game because that third is absolutely useless compared to the other 2 races, protoss has never been good, mc won stuff by pure luck of who he had to play and what state they were in, tired etc. protoss, in effect, has never been good, mostly because you have to follow one tech path and if you try to mimic a terran 1,1,1 you get dominated because you dont have the gas income to support it. also the tier 1 units are pathetic in comparison to marines alone, hell marauders hard counter gateway tech.
|
On September 12 2011 11:04 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Roach/Ling all-ins aren't easy to scout at all, if the Zerg actively denies worker scouts. Part of the reason you don't see them anymore is that Protosses have started playing a bit safer, have gotten better at handling the actual attack, and also because there's no reason for the Zerg to take such a huge risk when they can just take a quick third and be way ahead in the midgame. Roach/ling is horribly all-in for Zerg, and if Protoss just makes a 2nd cannon it's stopped. It's also heavily map dependent - on XNC it will always work (no one FFE on that map though...), but maps like Shakuras you can get away with a single cannon. And it's pretty easy to scout for - no natural base before lings, roach warren with your probe, etc. The losira/nestea style roach/ling is 35 roach warren, which you can see with hallucination. It's a horrible build, and Zerg has no way to recover from it. Zerg stopped doing it because it's a shitty build and you're just hoping Protoss plays incompetently and has horrible building placement. And it's not even good as aggression, you are completely all-in with just making 7 roaches and there's no way to recover if you don't at least kill a nexus.
No natural before lings doesn't mean anything, a normal 14/14 speedling expand makes lings before the natural hatch afaik. And again, you will never see anything inside the main after lings come out, if the Zerg wants do deny it.
Used to be that if you started Hallucination immediately after WG finished, you could see it in time, but after the WG nerf, it's not the case anymore. Your phoenix flies across the map and sees roaches walking towards your base.
Finally, the higher econ version isn't as all-in, in the sense that if you kill all the sentries, and start droning immediately after sending your push across the map, you'll end up ahead. LosirA used to do that a whole lot in ZvP.
|
Also, what stops a hellion thor all in vs p or z?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
