|
On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play.
It's hard to say given that everything they've nerfed ostensibly for non-highlevel1v1 has also been a problem there.
Anyway anyone who thinks they shouldn't balance at all for lower levels doesn't understand business, and Starcraft wouldn't exist if they were in charge.
|
On September 16 2011 07:00 Lomak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:58 branflakes14 wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Source?....... http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/692221"Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels" There is a key word in that sentence and its not 'silver'.
I wasn't the one who said silver, I was just getting the source 
|
On September 16 2011 07:00 Lomak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:58 branflakes14 wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Source?....... http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/692221"Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels" There is a key word in that sentence and its not 'silver'.
Yes. David Kim said Silver at Blizzcon.
|
On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play.
There is more to it in the patch notes than that:
Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. We feel the window players have to scout for and fend off this rush is too small. We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost.
It doesn't say silver league either, it says various skill levels, and gives some other reasons behind the change. If it was solely to nerf two gates as well there would be no reason to make the cooldown on warpgates higher as well.
The reaper was originally nerfed for 5 rax reaper, then I believe nerfed again and 2v2 was part of it but you are just looking at one reason for the nerf. They nerfed it for more than 2v2.
|
On September 16 2011 06:45 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:37 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:24 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:21 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:16 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:13 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:01 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 05:56 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 05:50 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 16 2011 05:47 R3N wrote:
[quote]
My NP requires research+ resources...And when I'm out of energy I can't form another unit and thus put my thumbs in my mouth and try to look useful. But you can take bases more freely than me and as a result, get so many resources... Plus you don't spend gas on anything other than research/buildings (assuming ling/Infestor). Are we done yet? Wtf? I don't understand, are you insinuating infestors are cheaper than HT?! I do agree infestors is a SLIGHTLY better unit but their still in the same caliber (both way below ghosts LOL) and take roughly the same amount of risk/reward (infestors more risk - believe it or not - but also more reward). I guess HT require more tech (focused). But still take more bases? I'm zerg, that's what I'm supposed to do as a result of my armies (maxed) fail to even take the shields off your deathball. You can't take resources in the equation without considering all factors. Uh, that's not what he said? He said that you have more resources which makes it easier to get more infestors. They're not cheaper but if you're on three bases worth of gas to my two bases worth of gas you can get more gas units than I can. And man, it is becoming annoying hearing all the whining about deathballs still. There have been so many high level games of zergs destroying "deathballs" easily, of zerg beating protoss while on equal bases, etc. Watch replays, compare positioning, tech, upgrades, and army value, and you'll understand why you lost the game opposed to "DEATHBALL IS STRONG". ...... As I said, I'm zerg and not protoss. My units aren't ½ as efficient as yours. That's why I get access to more bases faster than you can. Zerg can't win any half-decent ZvP on equal bases. One might think people figure that out by now.... Here, I'll make ridiculous unfounded statements too: Protoss units are not cost-effective versus zerg. If you prove your statement I'll prove mine. You're also going on a completely different tangent of the original statement that you'll have more infestors than templar. Proven my statement? So you really do believe protoss units are to be as easily massed as zerg? I think you need to enlighten the entire starcraft community and ofc, blizzard about this gospel of truth. As the other way 'round is widely accepted by everyone but you. Also we were talking about gas efficient and you came in straying shit about archons and how roaches beat them. What is the first part even talking about? What? I never said anything remotely like that. And watch any GSL ZvP. Z destroys P utterly in the matchup. This month was like 25% winrate and it would've been lower if protoss didn't one base all-in a couple games. Zerg completely shits on protoss and you are sitting here acting as if stalker/archon kills THREE zerg armies, which has never actually happened. You're just making random inaccurate statements, probably from your experiences in silver league or something, hence my sarcasm. Um, my talking about roaches v archons was in response to saying that roaches are a soft counter and me saying they aren't. That was me responding to a statement, not me going on a tangent. Lol, there are 2 more zergs in code S than 'toss and that "25% winrate" that you pulled from your ass was not far there off (the other way 'round) couple of months ago when zerg had no answer to 'toss a-moving balls. I just got promoted to masters in season 3 where I fail to see any balance issues ZvP but I do understand bronzies and 'toss trolls thinking so as they can't a-move anymore (HT requires 'T' left click  ) And oh roaches aren't a soft-counter to archons? So you think they're a hard-counter? LoL. As I already stated in previous posts, they do ok in midgame not because they're any particularly good against archons but because aren't as good at that point, you need allot of them en masse for their AoE to show real effect. That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually... The 25% winrate I pulled "from my ass" is actually 23.5% in GSL, look it up. While zerg was losing to protoss before, zerg was buffed and began to discover new styles like baneling drops + fungal and now it has been ahead internationally in the matchup since April: http://imgur.com/JvlvyAlso look at the Korean graph and please show me where zerg was ever at 25% versus protoss in Korea: http://i.imgur.com/aZDCO.pngThe lowest was 42.9%, back in September 2010. Lmao, you think that you are going to have a large amount of archons (300 gas) and stalkers in the midgame, enough to put a dent into a roach army? Sorry, try some micro for yourself---fungal growth those archons into place, they are 3 range compared to 4 of roaches and if you focus fire then archons will never get a shot off, so yes, roaches are a hard counter to them. Sorry that you can't beat mass archon/stalker with a-moving mass roach? Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant.
I don't see any 23.5% in any of these graphs nor would it matter even if it was true as both races are being raped by terrans and the fact that TvP is more imbalanced than TvZ matters jack shit when considering (the VERY FEW) ZvP's we have seen. Protoss lost these matches and you take that as a proof of imbalance? That's how it works only in your dreams.
Roaches scale terribly. They do shit dmg and their only worth, their relatively high hp, is worthless lategame because of AoE. They are kinda similar to stalkers in that regard, also high hp/ low dps, but unlike stalkers have 4 and not 6 range so worse surface area/less dps and more importantly, more vulnerable to AoE.
You can have 50 roaches lategame in a 200/200 army and unless it's a massive concave in like the middle of Tal'Darim (which is the fault of the 'toss, you ain't going to utilize all of them. Not even close. Unlike stalkers which have blink, infinetely more useful than burrow (late game). But that requires micro some thing I'm not even sure you know what it is.
Why do you even talk about infestor/broodlords lol. You further my points, as that's exactly what you see lategame ZvP, infestors+broodlords not hurr-durr. 50 roach "micro" (lol...) ass-raped by storms/colossi/archons.
Also I watch tons of starcraft (not some much these days tho, too many TvT's in GSL, some of my favourite youtube casters hibernating) so why do you continue with pointless personal attacks when you know nothing about me. Also I see tons of rapage, from both sides and not a one sided infestors+roach pushes you think is so unstoppable.
|
Nice.. now just remove the energy upgrade ( like they did to HT's which fucked up PvT so bad) and ZvP might be balanced
|
On September 16 2011 07:01 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play. It's hard to say given that everything they've nerfed ostensibly for non-highlevel1v1 has also been a problem there. Anyway anyone who thinks they shouldn't balance at all for lower levels doesn't understand business, and Starcraft wouldn't exist if they were in charge.
No disagreeing with you here - everyone wants the game to be balanced for their skill level at that very second so they have a fair shot at winning the game they are just about to play. It's highly unreasonable. Blizzard is doing what they can.
|
Good job blizz. Nerf infestors without even testing it on PTR.
Why not remove BF and run it on live servers next day you announce it. WTF?
|
On September 16 2011 06:55 Zelniq wrote:
omg we're witnessing a sick meta-patching strategy by Blizzard:
How to lower NP's range to 7 without upsetting the community? Propose an outrageous nerf for a while, then replace it with a less severe one. BRILLIANT
I used to do that with my parents when I was a little kid when I wanted them to say, take me to the movies. I'd just ask to go to something like miniature golf or bowling first, then after they turn it down they feel more welcome to the idea of going to a movie
I wish Blizzard would use this strategy for Protoss, they still have time to put back in Amulet .
On September 16 2011 07:04 dwh wrote:
Good job blizz. Nerf infestors without even testing it on PTR.
Why not remove BF and run it on live servers next day you announce it. WTF?
You act as if 'testing it on the PTR' means anything.
|
On September 16 2011 07:01 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:00 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:58 branflakes14 wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Source?....... http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/692221"Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels" There is a key word in that sentence and its not 'silver'. Yes. David Kim said Silver at Blizzcon.
They *have* stats about all skill levels. The relevant point is that they *also* have stats about just masters/grandmasters. It's their choice how much attention to pay to each. They're going to make sure the game isn't broken anywhere, but they've said many times that when it comes to very careful marginal balancing, they care much more about the very top than anything else.
|
On September 16 2011 07:02 R3N wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:45 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:37 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:24 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:21 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:16 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:13 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:01 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 05:56 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 05:50 Cloud9157 wrote:
[quote]
But you can take bases more freely than me and as a result, get so many resources... Plus you don't spend gas on anything other than research/buildings (assuming ling/Infestor).
Are we done yet? Wtf? I don't understand, are you insinuating infestors are cheaper than HT?! I do agree infestors is a SLIGHTLY better unit but their still in the same caliber (both way below ghosts LOL) and take roughly the same amount of risk/reward (infestors more risk - believe it or not - but also more reward). I guess HT require more tech (focused). But still take more bases? I'm zerg, that's what I'm supposed to do as a result of my armies (maxed) fail to even take the shields off your deathball. You can't take resources in the equation without considering all factors. Uh, that's not what he said? He said that you have more resources which makes it easier to get more infestors. They're not cheaper but if you're on three bases worth of gas to my two bases worth of gas you can get more gas units than I can. And man, it is becoming annoying hearing all the whining about deathballs still. There have been so many high level games of zergs destroying "deathballs" easily, of zerg beating protoss while on equal bases, etc. Watch replays, compare positioning, tech, upgrades, and army value, and you'll understand why you lost the game opposed to "DEATHBALL IS STRONG". ...... As I said, I'm zerg and not protoss. My units aren't ½ as efficient as yours. That's why I get access to more bases faster than you can. Zerg can't win any half-decent ZvP on equal bases. One might think people figure that out by now.... Here, I'll make ridiculous unfounded statements too: Protoss units are not cost-effective versus zerg. If you prove your statement I'll prove mine. You're also going on a completely different tangent of the original statement that you'll have more infestors than templar. Proven my statement? So you really do believe protoss units are to be as easily massed as zerg? I think you need to enlighten the entire starcraft community and ofc, blizzard about this gospel of truth. As the other way 'round is widely accepted by everyone but you. Also we were talking about gas efficient and you came in straying shit about archons and how roaches beat them. What is the first part even talking about? What? I never said anything remotely like that. And watch any GSL ZvP. Z destroys P utterly in the matchup. This month was like 25% winrate and it would've been lower if protoss didn't one base all-in a couple games. Zerg completely shits on protoss and you are sitting here acting as if stalker/archon kills THREE zerg armies, which has never actually happened. You're just making random inaccurate statements, probably from your experiences in silver league or something, hence my sarcasm. Um, my talking about roaches v archons was in response to saying that roaches are a soft counter and me saying they aren't. That was me responding to a statement, not me going on a tangent. Lol, there are 2 more zergs in code S than 'toss and that "25% winrate" that you pulled from your ass was not far there off (the other way 'round) couple of months ago when zerg had no answer to 'toss a-moving balls. I just got promoted to masters in season 3 where I fail to see any balance issues ZvP but I do understand bronzies and 'toss trolls thinking so as they can't a-move anymore (HT requires 'T' left click ) And oh roaches aren't a soft-counter to archons? So you think they're a hard-counter? LoL. As I already stated in previous posts, they do ok in midgame not because they're any particularly good against archons but because aren't as good at that point, you need allot of them en masse for their AoE to show real effect. That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually... The 25% winrate I pulled "from my ass" is actually 23.5% in GSL, look it up. While zerg was losing to protoss before, zerg was buffed and began to discover new styles like baneling drops + fungal and now it has been ahead internationally in the matchup since April: http://imgur.com/JvlvyAlso look at the Korean graph and please show me where zerg was ever at 25% versus protoss in Korea: http://i.imgur.com/aZDCO.pngThe lowest was 42.9%, back in September 2010. Lmao, you think that you are going to have a large amount of archons (300 gas) and stalkers in the midgame, enough to put a dent into a roach army? Sorry, try some micro for yourself---fungal growth those archons into place, they are 3 range compared to 4 of roaches and if you focus fire then archons will never get a shot off, so yes, roaches are a hard counter to them. Sorry that you can't beat mass archon/stalker with a-moving mass roach? Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant. I don't see any 23.5% in any of these graphs nor would it matter even if it was true as both races are being raped by terrans and the fact that TvP is more imbalanced than TvZ matters jack shit when considering (the VERY FEW) ZvP's we have seen. Protoss lost these matches and you take that as a proof of imbalance? That's how it works only in your dreams. Roaches scale terribly. They do shit dmg and their only worth, their relatively high hp, is worthless lategame because of AoE. They are kinda similar to stalkers in that regard, also high hp/ low dps, but unlike stalkers have 4 and not 6 range so worse surface area/less dps and more importantly, more vulnerable to AoE. You can have 50 roaches lategame in a 200/200 army and unless it's a massive concave in like the middle of Tal'Darim (which is the fault of the 'toss, you ain't going to utilize all of them. Not even close. Unlike stalkers which have blink, infinetely more useful than burrow (late game). But that requires micro some thing I'm not even sure you know what it is. Why do you even talk about infestor/broodlords lol. You further my points, as that's exactly what you see lategame ZvP, infestors+broodlords not hurr-durr. 50 roach "micro" (lol...) ass-raped by storms/colossi/archons. Also I watch tons of starcraft (not some much these days tho, too many TvT's in GSL, some of my favourite youtube casters hibernating) so why do you continue with pointless personal attacks when you know nothing about me. Also I see tons of rapage, from both sides and not a one sided infestors+roach pushes you think is so unstoppable.
Um, because those graphs don't have August's statistics in them? Lol arguing with you is pointless and you have horrible reading comprehension and overall reasoning skills. Continue to think zerg is bad versus protoss while they do amazingly. Thanks for the debate, it was funny.
|
On September 16 2011 07:04 ZAiNs wrote:I wish Blizzard would use this strategy for Protoss, they still have time to put back in Amulet .
Amulet was OP and anti-skill though. Good riddance.
That said they removed 2 of our upgrades completely, which is just sad. I want more upgrades for stuff!
|
On September 16 2011 07:03 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:01 Yaotzin wrote:On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play. It's hard to say given that everything they've nerfed ostensibly for non-highlevel1v1 has also been a problem there. Anyway anyone who thinks they shouldn't balance at all for lower levels doesn't understand business, and Starcraft wouldn't exist if they were in charge. No disagreeing with you here - everyone wants the game to be balanced for their skill level at that very second so they have a fair shot at winning the game they are just about to play. It's highly unreasonable. Blizzard is doing what they can.
What worries me most about the "various skill levels" comment from Blizzard is that anything below the top bleeding edge of metagame development is in effect completely arbitrary (and even then you could argue that everything is to an extent abitrary) and thus impossible to balance because there's nothing solid to actually balance.
|
On September 16 2011 07:02 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play. There is more to it in the patch notes than that: Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. We feel the window players have to scout for and fend off this rush is too small. We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost. It doesn't say silver league either, it says various skill levels, and gives some other reasons behind the change. If it was solely to nerf two gates as well there would be no reason to make the cooldown on warpgates higher as well. The reaper was originally nerfed for 5 rax reaper, then I believe nerfed again and 2v2 was part of it but you are just looking at one reason for the nerf. They nerfed it for more than 2v2.
True: To clarify, David Kim specified Silver league at the Balance Panel Discussion - Blizzcon 2010.
Yes, the secondary nerf about dumping minerals too quickly is another reason. I am not claiming that Blizzard balances equally for all skill levels, I'm simply responding to your comment about them not even considering the balance at "gold-level play".
|
On September 16 2011 07:04 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:01 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 07:00 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:58 branflakes14 wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:
[quote]
And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Source?....... http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/692221"Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels" There is a key word in that sentence and its not 'silver'. Yes. David Kim said Silver at Blizzcon. They *have* stats about all skill levels. The relevant point is that they *also* have stats about just masters/grandmasters. It's their choice how much attention to pay to each. They're going to make sure the game isn't broken anywhere, but they've said many times that when it comes to very careful marginal balancing, they care much more about the very top than anything else.
Agreed - I am not claiming that they weight findings in Silver league as equal to those of Grand Master players. I'm simply saying that they do put some weight in lower leagues. I was merely responding to an above poster who said gold-league was not part of balance findings.
|
On September 16 2011 07:06 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:04 ZAiNs wrote:I wish Blizzard would use this strategy for Protoss, they still have time to put back in Amulet . Amulet was OP and anti-skill though. Good riddance. That said they removed 2 of our upgrades completely, which is just sad. I want more upgrades for stuff!
No words for how bad you are
We needed Amulet to survive mid / late game PvT... drops all over the place raping face lol lets take away the only thing protoss uses to defend.. Because we all know cannons fucking suck PvT
|
On September 16 2011 07:06 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:02 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:59 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:56 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:54 QTIP. wrote:On September 16 2011 06:52 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:51 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:46 Ammanas wrote:On September 16 2011 06:33 Pwnographics wrote:On September 16 2011 06:19 Ammanas wrote:
I am just friggin gold player (more enjoying watching SC2 then playing) but I have to ask one thing: Why the hell do all of you think, you are better in keeping balance then Blizzard is?
I mean, SC1 is perfectly balanced game (yeah, it took a long time), WoW is the best balanced MMORPG by far (well, in PvP Warrhammer is better, but in PvE it has the best balance between classes and WoW never was really a PvP game). Also they have A TON of statistical data (more then anyone, of course) and they have data that no one else has.
The thing is, they are not basing their ballance at some subjective feelings or whatever, they are basing it on statistics. And statistics almost never lie. And I don't mean just basic winning percentage, if it works anything like in WoW, they literally have statistics of everything everyone has done in every game. And they have employees, whose full time job is to analyze those statistics/data.
So let me ask one more time. Why do YOU think, you know better then Blizzard? And stats do lie, if they want a good set of statistics they should exclude all games except grandmaster league/tournament results. No one but Blizzard cares if protoss has a 90% win rate in gold league and maybe some fucking scrubs in gold league. I am pretty sure, they stated on numerous occasions, that this is exactly what they are doing. Balancing the game around the best players. Even I am smart enough to not take any statistics from, say, bronze league seriously. Which is why the stats lie, because they take in account of gold league scrubs. No they don't. "We increased Zealot build time because we found Proxy 2-Gate to be too powerful at the silver-level of play." Unfortunately... they do. T_T Wasn't that like...a year ago? They may have back then but every statistic I have seen Blizzard provide for a long time has been either from tournament results or grandmaster league. They also recently tested reverting the zealot nerf + buffing stalker build time while they changed warpgates but they decided not to, so apparently the zealot nerf is working as intended. I agree, it was a while ago, and perhaps it has worked out completely fine. However, they do balance for various skill levels (read as: low skill) as well as game types. For example, they explained that the Reaper nerf was centered around 2v2 play. There is more to it in the patch notes than that: Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. We feel the window players have to scout for and fend off this rush is too small. We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost. It doesn't say silver league either, it says various skill levels, and gives some other reasons behind the change. If it was solely to nerf two gates as well there would be no reason to make the cooldown on warpgates higher as well. The reaper was originally nerfed for 5 rax reaper, then I believe nerfed again and 2v2 was part of it but you are just looking at one reason for the nerf. They nerfed it for more than 2v2. True: To clarify, David Kim specified Silver league at the Balance Panel Discussion - Blizzcon 2010. Yes, the secondary nerf about dumping minerals too quickly is another reason. I am not claiming that Blizzard balances equally for all skill levels, I'm simply responding to your comment about them not even considering the balance at "gold-level play".
Why would he specify silver league in particular? Why not gold, bronze, etc? That's weird wording from him and Blizzard in general. You're right but that is one instance a long time ago where they mentioned the major reason was for lower league but it still had an obvious implication on balance throughout the entire game that has made it more balanced than the previous 23 second build time. Maybe I'm just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here by chalking it down to awkward wording.
|
On September 16 2011 07:04 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:02 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:45 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:37 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:24 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:21 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:16 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:13 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:01 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 05:56 R3N wrote:
[quote]
Wtf?
I don't understand, are you insinuating infestors are cheaper than HT?! I do agree infestors is a SLIGHTLY better unit but their still in the same caliber (both way below ghosts LOL) and take roughly the same amount of risk/reward (infestors more risk - believe it or not - but also more reward).
I guess HT require more tech (focused). But still take more bases? I'm zerg, that's what I'm supposed to do as a result of my armies (maxed) fail to even take the shields off your deathball. You can't take resources in the equation without considering all factors.
Uh, that's not what he said? He said that you have more resources which makes it easier to get more infestors. They're not cheaper but if you're on three bases worth of gas to my two bases worth of gas you can get more gas units than I can. And man, it is becoming annoying hearing all the whining about deathballs still. There have been so many high level games of zergs destroying "deathballs" easily, of zerg beating protoss while on equal bases, etc. Watch replays, compare positioning, tech, upgrades, and army value, and you'll understand why you lost the game opposed to "DEATHBALL IS STRONG". ...... As I said, I'm zerg and not protoss. My units aren't ½ as efficient as yours. That's why I get access to more bases faster than you can. Zerg can't win any half-decent ZvP on equal bases. One might think people figure that out by now.... Here, I'll make ridiculous unfounded statements too: Protoss units are not cost-effective versus zerg. If you prove your statement I'll prove mine. You're also going on a completely different tangent of the original statement that you'll have more infestors than templar. Proven my statement? So you really do believe protoss units are to be as easily massed as zerg? I think you need to enlighten the entire starcraft community and ofc, blizzard about this gospel of truth. As the other way 'round is widely accepted by everyone but you. Also we were talking about gas efficient and you came in straying shit about archons and how roaches beat them. What is the first part even talking about? What? I never said anything remotely like that. And watch any GSL ZvP. Z destroys P utterly in the matchup. This month was like 25% winrate and it would've been lower if protoss didn't one base all-in a couple games. Zerg completely shits on protoss and you are sitting here acting as if stalker/archon kills THREE zerg armies, which has never actually happened. You're just making random inaccurate statements, probably from your experiences in silver league or something, hence my sarcasm. Um, my talking about roaches v archons was in response to saying that roaches are a soft counter and me saying they aren't. That was me responding to a statement, not me going on a tangent. Lol, there are 2 more zergs in code S than 'toss and that "25% winrate" that you pulled from your ass was not far there off (the other way 'round) couple of months ago when zerg had no answer to 'toss a-moving balls. I just got promoted to masters in season 3 where I fail to see any balance issues ZvP but I do understand bronzies and 'toss trolls thinking so as they can't a-move anymore (HT requires 'T' left click ) And oh roaches aren't a soft-counter to archons? So you think they're a hard-counter? LoL. As I already stated in previous posts, they do ok in midgame not because they're any particularly good against archons but because aren't as good at that point, you need allot of them en masse for their AoE to show real effect. That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually... The 25% winrate I pulled "from my ass" is actually 23.5% in GSL, look it up. While zerg was losing to protoss before, zerg was buffed and began to discover new styles like baneling drops + fungal and now it has been ahead internationally in the matchup since April: http://imgur.com/JvlvyAlso look at the Korean graph and please show me where zerg was ever at 25% versus protoss in Korea: http://i.imgur.com/aZDCO.pngThe lowest was 42.9%, back in September 2010. Lmao, you think that you are going to have a large amount of archons (300 gas) and stalkers in the midgame, enough to put a dent into a roach army? Sorry, try some micro for yourself---fungal growth those archons into place, they are 3 range compared to 4 of roaches and if you focus fire then archons will never get a shot off, so yes, roaches are a hard counter to them. Sorry that you can't beat mass archon/stalker with a-moving mass roach? Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant. I don't see any 23.5% in any of these graphs nor would it matter even if it was true as both races are being raped by terrans and the fact that TvP is more imbalanced than TvZ matters jack shit when considering (the VERY FEW) ZvP's we have seen. Protoss lost these matches and you take that as a proof of imbalance? That's how it works only in your dreams. Roaches scale terribly. They do shit dmg and their only worth, their relatively high hp, is worthless lategame because of AoE. They are kinda similar to stalkers in that regard, also high hp/ low dps, but unlike stalkers have 4 and not 6 range so worse surface area/less dps and more importantly, more vulnerable to AoE. You can have 50 roaches lategame in a 200/200 army and unless it's a massive concave in like the middle of Tal'Darim (which is the fault of the 'toss, you ain't going to utilize all of them. Not even close. Unlike stalkers which have blink, infinetely more useful than burrow (late game). But that requires micro some thing I'm not even sure you know what it is. Why do you even talk about infestor/broodlords lol. You further my points, as that's exactly what you see lategame ZvP, infestors+broodlords not hurr-durr. 50 roach "micro" (lol...) ass-raped by storms/colossi/archons. Also I watch tons of starcraft (not some much these days tho, too many TvT's in GSL, some of my favourite youtube casters hibernating) so why do you continue with pointless personal attacks when you know nothing about me. Also I see tons of rapage, from both sides and not a one sided infestors+roach pushes you think is so unstoppable. Um, because those graphs don't have August's statistics in them? Lol arguing with you is pointless and you have horrible reading comprehension and overall reasoning skills. Continue to think zerg is bad versus protoss while they do amazingly. Thanks for the debate, it was funny.
Sorry, R3N's right.
|
On September 16 2011 07:04 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:02 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:45 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:37 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:24 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:21 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:16 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:13 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:01 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 05:56 R3N wrote:
[quote]
Wtf?
I don't understand, are you insinuating infestors are cheaper than HT?! I do agree infestors is a SLIGHTLY better unit but their still in the same caliber (both way below ghosts LOL) and take roughly the same amount of risk/reward (infestors more risk - believe it or not - but also more reward).
I guess HT require more tech (focused). But still take more bases? I'm zerg, that's what I'm supposed to do as a result of my armies (maxed) fail to even take the shields off your deathball. You can't take resources in the equation without considering all factors.
Uh, that's not what he said? He said that you have more resources which makes it easier to get more infestors. They're not cheaper but if you're on three bases worth of gas to my two bases worth of gas you can get more gas units than I can. And man, it is becoming annoying hearing all the whining about deathballs still. There have been so many high level games of zergs destroying "deathballs" easily, of zerg beating protoss while on equal bases, etc. Watch replays, compare positioning, tech, upgrades, and army value, and you'll understand why you lost the game opposed to "DEATHBALL IS STRONG". ...... As I said, I'm zerg and not protoss. My units aren't ½ as efficient as yours. That's why I get access to more bases faster than you can. Zerg can't win any half-decent ZvP on equal bases. One might think people figure that out by now.... Here, I'll make ridiculous unfounded statements too: Protoss units are not cost-effective versus zerg. If you prove your statement I'll prove mine. You're also going on a completely different tangent of the original statement that you'll have more infestors than templar. Proven my statement? So you really do believe protoss units are to be as easily massed as zerg? I think you need to enlighten the entire starcraft community and ofc, blizzard about this gospel of truth. As the other way 'round is widely accepted by everyone but you. Also we were talking about gas efficient and you came in straying shit about archons and how roaches beat them. What is the first part even talking about? What? I never said anything remotely like that. And watch any GSL ZvP. Z destroys P utterly in the matchup. This month was like 25% winrate and it would've been lower if protoss didn't one base all-in a couple games. Zerg completely shits on protoss and you are sitting here acting as if stalker/archon kills THREE zerg armies, which has never actually happened. You're just making random inaccurate statements, probably from your experiences in silver league or something, hence my sarcasm. Um, my talking about roaches v archons was in response to saying that roaches are a soft counter and me saying they aren't. That was me responding to a statement, not me going on a tangent. Lol, there are 2 more zergs in code S than 'toss and that "25% winrate" that you pulled from your ass was not far there off (the other way 'round) couple of months ago when zerg had no answer to 'toss a-moving balls. I just got promoted to masters in season 3 where I fail to see any balance issues ZvP but I do understand bronzies and 'toss trolls thinking so as they can't a-move anymore (HT requires 'T' left click ) And oh roaches aren't a soft-counter to archons? So you think they're a hard-counter? LoL. As I already stated in previous posts, they do ok in midgame not because they're any particularly good against archons but because aren't as good at that point, you need allot of them en masse for their AoE to show real effect. That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually... The 25% winrate I pulled "from my ass" is actually 23.5% in GSL, look it up. While zerg was losing to protoss before, zerg was buffed and began to discover new styles like baneling drops + fungal and now it has been ahead internationally in the matchup since April: http://imgur.com/JvlvyAlso look at the Korean graph and please show me where zerg was ever at 25% versus protoss in Korea: http://i.imgur.com/aZDCO.pngThe lowest was 42.9%, back in September 2010. Lmao, you think that you are going to have a large amount of archons (300 gas) and stalkers in the midgame, enough to put a dent into a roach army? Sorry, try some micro for yourself---fungal growth those archons into place, they are 3 range compared to 4 of roaches and if you focus fire then archons will never get a shot off, so yes, roaches are a hard counter to them. Sorry that you can't beat mass archon/stalker with a-moving mass roach? Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant. I don't see any 23.5% in any of these graphs nor would it matter even if it was true as both races are being raped by terrans and the fact that TvP is more imbalanced than TvZ matters jack shit when considering (the VERY FEW) ZvP's we have seen. Protoss lost these matches and you take that as a proof of imbalance? That's how it works only in your dreams. Roaches scale terribly. They do shit dmg and their only worth, their relatively high hp, is worthless lategame because of AoE. They are kinda similar to stalkers in that regard, also high hp/ low dps, but unlike stalkers have 4 and not 6 range so worse surface area/less dps and more importantly, more vulnerable to AoE. You can have 50 roaches lategame in a 200/200 army and unless it's a massive concave in like the middle of Tal'Darim (which is the fault of the 'toss, you ain't going to utilize all of them. Not even close. Unlike stalkers which have blink, infinetely more useful than burrow (late game). But that requires micro some thing I'm not even sure you know what it is. Why do you even talk about infestor/broodlords lol. You further my points, as that's exactly what you see lategame ZvP, infestors+broodlords not hurr-durr. 50 roach "micro" (lol...) ass-raped by storms/colossi/archons. Also I watch tons of starcraft (not some much these days tho, too many TvT's in GSL, some of my favourite youtube casters hibernating) so why do you continue with pointless personal attacks when you know nothing about me. Also I see tons of rapage, from both sides and not a one sided infestors+roach pushes you think is so unstoppable. Um, because those graphs don't have August's statistics in them? Lol arguing with you is pointless and you have horrible reading comprehension and overall reasoning skills. Continue to think zerg is bad versus protoss while they do amazingly. Thanks for the debate, it was funny.
So you don't have any arguments anymore and refers to personal attacks. Pointless idd.
And *once again*, it doesn't matter it if those "statistics" (requires more than one season...) are true cause we have so few ZvP's this season. Reading comprehension fail idd.
|
On September 16 2011 06:54 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 06:54 Pred8oar wrote:
Could someone explain why np is so op that it needs to be nerfed? 9 range was fine, just think of blinkstalkers, hts, ghosts, even phoenix or just a bunch of high range units like colossi or tanks. People just started to learn how to dea lwith the infestors and np, why does it need a nerf?
Maybe because i a mZerg i dont get it but well..... ;P Watch pro PvZs for the best explanation.
I do 
But well what i mean is that toss/terran mostly refuse to react to infestors and both races got spells to drain energy and prevent infestors to do terrible terrible damage. The only reason i could think of is the great overall utility but thats no argument to nerf np. And seriously if you stand out in the open with 3 colo up front then you just deserve to get destroyed imo. I dont quite know what you are referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
