|
On September 12 2011 10:14 Belial88 wrote:
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?
So many tournaments were won with it, because it was a viable build before the arrival of the roach/ling all-in. The problem with 3gate expo now ISN'T that it is crushed by the all-in, but the fact that you now have to wait significantly longer before expoing to remain safe against it - thus placing the Protoss too far behind for the build to be worth it
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 still don't understand this mentality. If anything, it seems like Zerg requires the least micro because their units objectively don't BENEFIT from micro in any tangible way (largely due to the fact that their mainstay units are short/melee range units and their long range units are extremely slow) - whereas units like blink stalkers/sentries etc have the potential to become twice as cost-effective with proper micro.
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).
It really isn't. Chrono can only realistically be spent on the nexus at the very beginning of the game. Once the Zerg hatchery is up, the Zerg zooms ahead in worker count.
|
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.
A probe should still see the expansion unless you leave it in the Zerg's main to die and you are completely unaware of timings, at all. Even if you are that bad, a pylon block and cancel will tell you what zerg's doing. You can also see his gas timing as well (if workers removed). And that's a fast roach/ling rush, which no one does because it's horrible. Roach/Ling all-in losira style is 35 supply roach warren, which means you'll have hallu in plenty of time before the push so you can react.
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.
You should still see it in time even with the WG nerf. You'll see roaches massing, not pushing yet.
And the 'higher econ' version of roach warren at 35 supply is all-in, it just has speedling reinforcements. You'll have only 30 workers on 2 bases against Protoss with 30+ workers on 2 base, when your third should almost be done. I don't think losira ever not won straight up with his roach/ling push.
|
You will not have hallucination in time. There was a hugeass thread in the strategy forum that goes over the issue in minutiae. Best bet is to send a pair of zealots across the map to see if the zerg meets it with a bunch of lings. If they don't meet you with a lot of lings you need to get plentiful cannons down well before hallucination finishes.
|
On September 12 2011 12:40 alisru wrote:
Also, what stops a hellion thor all in vs p or z?
T_T
I havent found the answer yet but alot of it has to do with delaying that 200/200 push for as long as possible either through counterattacking or harass or with units that can slow them down like spines, broods and infestors. That said. Watching an army of thors cleave through 30 spinecrawlers was fucking stupid.
If its a fairly quick allin with scvs pulled then Infestor/roach and neural will work well if you have the tech. If not then roaches and banelings will have to do, kill the scvs and you can work on the thor. Provided that the scvs die and you live without losing a hatchery then you will be ahead.
|
Don't you think that part of the problem in PvZ is that tournaments maps are way too different from ladder maps ?
The current tournament maps are extremely zerg favored (no short rush distance, easy third, supply depot at botom of ramps, no rocks, etc.)
Basically those maps were made months ago when zerg were struggling, as a result they are made to compensate an imbalance that is no longer here. For instance, not having rocks on the third really helps zerg in ZvP, and not so much in ZvT.
Just look at how well the races are doing on the ladder:
Grandmaster stats:
Korea
Top 15: 1P 13T 1Z
Top 100: 30P 50T 20Z
Top 200: 66P 76T 58Z
NA
Top 15: 5P 6T 4Z
Top 100: 35P 36T 29Z
Top 200: 68P 70T 62Z
Europe
Top 15: 5P 4T 6Z
Top 100: 34P 34T 32Z
Top 200: 66P 73T 61Z
In every region we have terran doing better than protoss, and protoss doing better than zerg.
|
Try to count the number of users playing Zergs. It's actually T > Z > P in GM overall.
The protoss's weakness is showing in GM levels as well as progamers.
|
^ Huh? It shows more GM P than Z.
It's annoying when people keep saying P is UP vs Zerg, but don't give reasons why. It's obviously a metagame shift when Zerg owning stargate (and the spore crawler root time and popularity of later lair, more queens, better creep spread) and FFE.
|
On September 12 2011 14:41 highsis wrote:
Try to count the number of users playing Zergs. It's actually T > Z > P in GM overall.
The protoss's weakness is showing in GM levels as well as progamers.
...
I just posted the numbers, and it's clearly T>P>Z
Protoss is actually close to 1/3
|
On September 12 2011 15:10 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 14:41 highsis wrote:
Try to count the number of users playing Zergs. It's actually T > Z > P in GM overall.
The protoss's weakness is showing in GM levels as well as progamers. ... I just posted the numbers, and it's clearly T>P>Z Protoss is actually close to 1/3
I agree with the fact that Protoss is doing not so well lately, but my question is: Didn't Protoss have to adapt to the most changes lately and maybe they haven't really adapted just yet? Okay, many ppl have said the same about Zerg, but Zerg was considered weak way longer. Just look at how PvZ and PvT has changed in just a few months:
- PvZ was mostly Roach+hydra+Corruptors, then, ppl realized how bad Corruptors and Hydras are and after the Infestor-Buff, Infestor has become the cornerstone of PvZ. Also, Speeling+Banelings with drop have been used much more. Also, Zergs began to understand how to macro well against FFE and still defend common timings or DT/VR-Harrass, so those strats don't work anymore as well and that's just always the case with timing-based attacks or gimmicky strats like DT's or VR's.
Protoss also had a recent Archon-Buff that certain players do incredibly well with (watch Kiwi's heavily attack-upgraded Archon-use against Zerg - they totally rip apart everything)!
Another thing I've been wondering about is, why Protoss don't really use the strongest deathball (Blinkstalkers+VR's+Collossi) anymore. I almost never see this combination of Units anymore and I really don't know why. Okay, with Fungals, it's clearly not the best thing to ball up your army like crazy, but Zerg nowadays are relying on an army-composition with nearly no anti-air besides the Infestors spells against Protoss, so this kind of deathball should be incredibly strong, yet we almost never see it used anymore.
- In PvT, Terran has begun to use much more Ghosts - both in the lategame and for certain strong timing-attacks and the 1/1/1-build has evolved to one of the strongest timing-attacks.
I'm not saying that Protoss shouldn't be buffed and that the Protoss-players are just playing bad, but I'm afraid of too severe buffs or nerfs (like the NP-nerf that Blizzard is currently considering) while Protoss still has to adapt to severe Playstyle-changes.
What I think is the biggest Problem with PvZ is, that still, Protoss rely to heavily on 2-base timings instead of trying to get a third base up as possible and max out on 3 bases. I've not really seen any build of Protoss in PvZ, that just tries to get up a third base safely as soon as possible and max out on a very strong army-composition. Even MC still relies heavily on his FFE into fast stargate build and his VR's+Phoenix just don't work anymore against players like Dongraegu, Losira etc. - he can't cancel the third anymore and gets way behind with his investment. Instead, he should try to counter the zergs third with a safe third of his own and focus on defending it with the lowest tech possible and then max out on 3 bases.
|
On September 12 2011 12:46 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +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. A probe should still see the expansion unless you leave it in the Zerg's main to die and you are completely unaware of timings, at all. Even if you are that bad, a pylon block and cancel will tell you what zerg's doing. You can also see his gas timing as well (if workers removed). And that's a fast roach/ling rush, which no one does because it's horrible. Roach/Ling all-in losira style is 35 supply roach warren, which means you'll have hallu in plenty of time before the push so you can react.
I think this is some sort of misunderstanding. I know when the Zerg expands, and can identify his opening easily. My point is, the opening doesn't tell me anything about the followup. The one tell I can use before my probe dies is whether he's mining gas beyond the first 100, but it's trivial for him to pull the drones off as my probe runs in, and then put them back in after he kills it.
On September 12 2011 12:46 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +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. You should still see it in time even with the WG nerf. You'll see roaches massing, not pushing yet. And the 'higher econ' version of roach warren at 35 supply is all-in, it just has speedling reinforcements. You'll have only 30 workers on 2 bases against Protoss with 30+ workers on 2 base, when your third should almost be done. I don't think losira ever not won straight up with his roach/ling push.
You don't see it in time. This isn't just me and my terrible play, there was a huge thread about this in the strategy forum, and you simply don't see it in time.
Besides, afaik Losira didn't kill Alicia the first time he even used the build in a televised game, but he did enough damage to make it worthwhile.
|
On September 12 2011 14:10 Elean wrote:
Don't you think that part of the problem in PvZ is that tournaments maps are way too different from ladder maps ?
I agree, looking at GSL for example they have replaced most of the ladder maps with custom maps and it is really hard to see any obvious maps that favour protoss. In the ladder set I would say backwater and typhon are not bad at all for protoss and surprise surprise Shakuras plateau which is 1-6, whereas some maps like dual sight are 16-9, terminus 23-7 in the zergs favour.
If more maps that favoured protoss were played and protoss had less suicidal protoss like MC or Genius who either pick the strongest players for their group or try to force playstyles that dont work on some maps.
|
The problem with PvZ is definitely not the maps. The ladder maps are just plain shit in most match-ups, and the large maps are needed to make games more interesting. The PvZ match-up is broken because none of Protoss early-midgame builds stand up to Zerg any more. FFE < fast 3rd, with Stargate/DTs denied easily, MC-style 1gate/expand/Stargate < Zerg standard play, 3gate expand either dies to Roach/ling pressure (it isn't even all-in, contrary to popular belief, it just has to kill sentries) or plays too safe and loses the macro game, Zerg can easily scout Protoss base to prevent cheese keeping Zergs honest, yadda yadda yadda. I still think PvZ is a better match-up than PvT, though. That's just completely broken.
|
On September 12 2011 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:
The problem with PvZ is definitely not the maps. The ladder maps are just plain shit in most match-ups, and the large maps are needed to make games more interesting. The PvZ match-up is broken because none of Protoss early-midgame builds stand up to Zerg any more. FFE < fast 3rd, with Stargate/DTs denied easily, MC-style 1gate/expand/Stargate < Zerg standard play, 3gate expand either dies to Roach/ling pressure (it isn't even all-in, contrary to popular belief, it just has to kill sentries) or plays too safe and loses the macro game, Zerg can easily scout Protoss base to prevent cheese keeping Zergs honest, yadda yadda yadda. I still think PvZ is a better match-up than PvT, though. That's just completely broken.
You can't take a fast third if there is a rock to break. Not to mention the delay, it costs 500 mineral of mining time to break the rock with zerglings. Having to take a third toward the opponent makes a big difference too.
Some maps are simply too bigs. Xel'Naga carvern used to be considered as one of the most balanced map, now it has become an extremely small map.
The problem is if you balance teh game for the current tournament maps, you will have an extremely imbalanced game on ladder maps. The balance problem does not always require a patch to be fixed. I think the problem could be partly fixed if map makers stopped making maps so heavily zerg favored.
|
On September 12 2011 08:07 Rococo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Jon Stewart is not a professional politician and has never run for any public office, yet he seems perfectly capable of pointing out the flaws in modern governmental practices..
I am personally of the opinion that though the professional scene is good for calibrating game balance, real issues are more easily identified by the masses rather than the 1% of players at the pro level, simply by sheer numbers of games played. Sure, your average joe wouldn't be able to fix game balance with only his suggestions alone, but general consensus, such as that found in the online community, can be a powerful tool for positive change. In the end, Blizzard is more responsible to their customers, rather than their pro players...
|
So many tournaments were won with it, because it was a viable build before the arrival of the roach/ling all-in. The problem with 3gate expo now ISN'T that it is crushed by the all-in, but the fact that you now have to wait significantly longer before expoing to remain safe against it - thus placing the Protoss too far behind for the build to be worth it
Roach/Ling all-in is still owned by 3 gate expo... All it can do is force a cancel or hope the Protoss is stupid enough to be caught in the open and had bad FF micro.
I still don't understand this mentality. If anything, it seems like Zerg requires the least micro because their units objectively don't BENEFIT from micro in any tangible way (largely due to the fact that their mainstay units are short/melee range units and their long range units are extremely slow) - whereas units like blink stalkers/sentries etc have the potential to become twice as cost-effective with proper micro.
Positioning is a huge deal with Zerg, particularly against splash. Having 2 smaller groups from both sides is much better against splash units than 1 doubly larger group. It's more so that Protoss deathball armies are too effective, Zerg can't outmicro it and Protoss doesn't need to micro at all.
It really isn't. Chrono can only realistically be spent on the nexus at the very beginning of the game. Once the Zerg hatchery is up, the Zerg zooms ahead in worker count.
... and falls way behind in unit count. The disparity ocurrs around Protoss having 35 workers and Zerg getting up to 44. From there, Protoss is ahead with getting 2 bases, and can put lots of pressure on Zerg. They need to stay up a base to be even.
|
On September 13 2011 00:19 Rob28 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 08:07 Rococo wrote: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. Jon Stewart is not a professional politician and has never run for any public office, yet he seems perfectly capable of pointing out the flaws in modern governmental practices.. I am personally of the opinion that though the professional scene is good for calibrating game balance, real issues are more easily identified by the masses rather than the 1% of players at the pro level, simply by sheer numbers of games played. Sure, your average joe wouldn't be able to fix game balance with only his suggestions alone, but general consensus, such as that found in the online community, can be a powerful tool for positive change. In the end, Blizzard is more responsible to their customers, rather than their pro players...
Government isn't competitive and elections don't necessarily (or even usually, arguably) produce the best quality officials, thus this analogy is not valid.
|
On September 13 2011 04:49 Cyrak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:19 Rob28 wrote:On September 12 2011 08:07 Rococo wrote: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. Jon Stewart is not a professional politician and has never run for any public office, yet he seems perfectly capable of pointing out the flaws in modern governmental practices.. I am personally of the opinion that though the professional scene is good for calibrating game balance, real issues are more easily identified by the masses rather than the 1% of players at the pro level, simply by sheer numbers of games played. Sure, your average joe wouldn't be able to fix game balance with only his suggestions alone, but general consensus, such as that found in the online community, can be a powerful tool for positive change. In the end, Blizzard is more responsible to their customers, rather than their pro players... Government isn't competitive and elections don't necessarily (or even usually, arguably) produce the best quality officials, thus this analogy is not valid.
I'm just saying that often people outside the process observing can speak to the effectiveness of something with validity. Thanks for trying though.
|
On September 12 2011 14:10 Elean wrote:
Don't you think that part of the problem in PvZ is that tournaments maps are way too different from ladder maps ?
The current tournament maps are extremely zerg favored (no short rush distance, easy third, supply depot at botom of ramps, no rocks, etc.)
Basically those maps were made months ago when zerg were struggling, as a result they are made to compensate an imbalance that is no longer here. For instance, not having rocks on the third really helps zerg in ZvP, and not so much in ZvT.
Just look at how well the races are doing on the ladder:
Grandmaster stats:
Korea
Top 15: 1P 13T 1Z
Top 100: 30P 50T 20Z
Top 200: 66P 76T 58Z
NA
Top 15: 5P 6T 4Z
Top 100: 35P 36T 29Z
Top 200: 68P 70T 62Z
Europe
Top 15: 5P 4T 6Z
Top 100: 34P 34T 32Z
Top 200: 66P 73T 61Z
In every region we have terran doing better than protoss, and protoss doing better than zerg.
Whoa there. Number of players =/= How well each race is doing.
The win percentages have been shown plenty of times as graphs: T>>> Z > P.
|
Guys seriously take a look at OP and then come back to latest pages. Please if someone acts dickhead or is arrogant in your opinion do not mix it up with balance discussion.
e: It makes reading of this thread really annoying.
e2: If possible, keep statistics as statistics. Hopefully I didn't ask too much 
|
On August 16 2011 09:54 TENTHST wrote:
1) Marine - 2.25
2) Marauder - 2.25
3) Unsieged Siege Tank - 2.25
4) Medivac - 2.5
5) Ghost - 2.25
6) Raven - 2.25
7) Thor - 1.88
8) Viking in air - 2.75
9) Banshee - 2.75
Notice how most of the core units have move speeds between 2.25 and 2.75? This means the Terran player can have a 1 army hot-key of Marines/Marauders/Medivacs/Ghosts/Tanks/Viking (a typical composition when playing versus Protoss), and tab through categories, without ever having to worry about a single unit type reaching the battle before the rest of the group.
Now let's take a look at the core units for a basic Protoss and Zerg army:
1) Zealot with Charge- 2.75
2) Stalker - 2.95
3) Sentry - 2.25
4) High Templar - 1.88
5) Colossus - 2.25
6) Immortal - 2.25
7) Dark Templar - 2.81
8) Phoenix - 4.25
9) Void Ray - 2.25
ok so lets make it straight... you think that marauders with the speed of stalkers would make it harder for terran?
also, I want to throw in my 2 cents regarding "terran being the most forgiving race because they can drop supply depots and drop 6 mules at a time if they forgot to do it earlier"
so... yeaaa but it works only in the bronzish leagues... it's the same as if I said that zerg is forgiving because you can rebuild workers 14 at a time from 2 hatcheries after you get harassed... zerg is forgiving because after getting all your army killed and workers, they need like 2 minutes of peace to get back where they were...
I think the game is pretty much well balanced, but I'd just change corruptors, collosi, reapers and hellions for something else...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
