EPTmake a poll, lets vote ~~
[D] KA in PvT then and now- NSHoSeo_san vs MVP_sC - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Akhee
Brazil811 Posts
make a poll, lets vote ~~ | ||
|
DrGreen
Poland708 Posts
On November 06 2011 04:12 sVnteen wrote: im am sure that if you would put KA back into the game protoss would just dominate everything since they now konw how to use hts and zerg/terra would have nooooo chance at all against the now super strong warpprism +templar drops and totally get destroyed so hard against terran it would also be way to strong since you can just not build hts that can be emp'ed and if the fight starts they warp them in from all sides and the terran army wont stand a chance Im am sure that terran would do totally fine since they learned how to use ghosts after KA removal. "warp over 9000 HTs everywhere around the map!!!11" | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
Regarding drops, someone already quoted Time who did the math about HTs being inefficient against single medivac drops. One Storm won't cut it, and if you warp in more HTs you basically made the drop costefficient already if he picks them off. Similarly, HTs are a bit wacky when it comes to defending multipronged harass because you need to aim Storms at 2+ fronts. It is not impossible, but it is easier to warp in Chargelots/DTs especially if you have to be careful that your main army doesn't get EMPd too badly or prevent the opponent's vikings from taking shots on your colossi. The only type of drop KA HTs would be really good against are 2+ medivac doom drops, which is a good thing in my eyes. It doesn't happen too often, but it is quite silly for a Terran to win the game because he made a desperation drop while the Protoss is moving out. But most importantly, Storm is something that is good to watch for the spectator. The fact that you can run out of Storms and that Storm will damage the own units make it an exciting ability to watch. Any sort of Storm + Force Field combination is beautiful. Between having to spread HTs and them being so slow, getting good Storms off is really difficult and not appreciated enough. Unlike EMP or FG, you actually suffer and hit your own units if you miss, just like some milliseconds off on your forcefields can make the difference between win and loss. Nobody actually thought that warpin Storms were imbalanced or made for a bad spectator experience, it's just people retrospectively making that up. If anything, it encouraged fighting in smaller groups and/or being more aggressive because you know you have something to fall back on, which can only be good for the game overall. | ||
|
Eternalmisfit
United States643 Posts
On November 06 2011 03:34 iamke55 wrote: Excellent post. It boggles my mind that there are people who consider it imbalanced for PvT to have a ~50% winrate with KA, but balanced when PvT has a ~40% winrate without KA. Depending on what you exactly meant in your post, my post below may agree/disagree with that. I believe the balance of an individual unit does not necessarily correlate with the win-rate percent of a match. The W-L % of the match at any given point in time depends on the map pool, evolution of strategies and counter strategies combined with maturation of the potential of a unit. Until the game is mature enough and devoid of balance changes for a while, it is hard to make an argument whether a unit/ability in balanced or not. The best example of this, in context of SC2, being the hellion. BFH have been pretty much untouched in the game since its inception. However, during the entirety of the 1st year of the game, the blue flame upgrade was rarely used and BFH strategies were non-existent. It was only in mid-2011 when Slayers hellion strategies were developed when we came to know how strong that ability was. If you go back to late 2010 or early 2011, I do not think you would find anyone arguing the BFH were imbalanced. However, in view of current information, it can argued that BFH strategies were equally or even more 'imba' due to the fact that medivcas moved faster, Terran timings could come earlier due no bunker before rax requirements and so on. The key point I am trying to make that even though there might have been a time period when ZvT was 50-50 split pre-BFH era, BFH were still 'imbalanced' (in quotes as imo we still just don't have enough knowledge to claim confidently) independent of the win-rate. Extending this logic to KA, it is not possible to prove that KA is imbalanced at PvT 50% or even at 40%. Until the game becomes mature enough that a lot of the unit potentials/strategies are realized, determining the balance of an individual unit/ability in terms of a matchup win-loss % is not possible as there are too many variables that come into play. Note that by similar logic, removing KA was an equally bad idea since a local event of PvT matchup increase did not necessarily mean that KA was imbalanced at that point of time. Though I applaud Blizzard for being active with the amount of balance changes going on, I do think that they are making too many drastic changes too quick and not letting strategies evolve sufficiently. If Blizzard had strong reason/evidence to believe that KA was imba, it should have been nerfed to a point where you needed 4-5 sec after warp-in to storm and then studied how much of a difference this made instead of outright removing it. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 06 2011 04:28 Eternalmisfit wrote: Depending on what you exactly meant in your post, my post below may agree/disagree with that. I believe the balance of an individual unit does not necessarily correlate with the win-rate percent of a match. The W-L % of the match at any given point in time depends on the map pool, evolution of strategies and counter strategies combined with maturation of the potential of a unit. Until the game is mature enough and devoid of balance changes for a while, it is hard to make an argument whether a unit/ability in balanced or not. The best example of this, in context of SC2, being the hellion. BFH have been pretty much untouched in the game since its inception. However, during the entirety of the 1st year of the game, the blue flame upgrade was rarely used and BFH strategies were non-existent. It was only in mid-2011 when Slayers hellion strategies were developed when we came to know how strong that ability was. If you go back to late 2010 or early 2011, I do not think you would find anyone arguing the BFH were imbalanced. However, in view of current information, it can argued that BFH strategies were equally or even more 'imba' due to the fact that medivcas moved faster, Terran timings could come earlier due no bunker before rax requirements and so on. The key point I am trying to make that even though there might have been a time period when ZvT was 50-50 split pre-BFH era, BFH were still 'imbalanced' (in quotes as imo we still just don't have enough knowledge to claim confidently) independent of the win-rate. Extending this logic to KA, it is not possible to prove that KA is imbalanced at PvT 50% or even at 40%. Until the game becomes mature enough that a lot of the unit potentials/strategies are realized, determining the balance of an individual unit/ability in terms of a matchup win-loss % is not possible as there are too many variables that come into play. Note that by similar logic, removing KA was an equally bad idea since a local event of PvT matchup increase did not necessarily mean that KA was imbalanced at that point of time. Though I applaud Blizzard for being active with the amount of balance changes going on, I do think that they are making too many drastic changes too quick and not letting strategies evolve sufficiently. If Blizzard had strong reason/evidence to believe that KA was imba, it should have been nerfed to a point where you needed 4-5 sec after warp-in to storm and then studied how much of a difference this made instead of outright removing it. The idea of KA was flawed in actual practice though. For both Terran and Zerg, starting the production of the iconic caster is an investment and risk, basically predicting you aren't going to be attacked in the next ~45s. At the very least, you won't need the abilities of the caster for the next ~45s. For Protoss, this removed all forward thinking of the HT out of the equation. If you needed storms, you just warped them in ~5s. There is no significant waiting period or forward thinking, just reaction. Especially with the archon buff, this would become an incredibly hard scenario to deal with for both Terran and Zerg. To address other arguments about gateways being on cooldown, we're beginning to see a metagame shift where gateways are being massed beyond the income potential of Protoss. This allows them to warp in units on demand when having to address harassment forces away from their main force. Thus, the cooldown for HTs becomes moot and the only barrier is gas income. On 2-3 bases, that gives harassment opportunity for 18s at most (only 7-11s for a medivac drop) if you're relying ONLY on HTs. With zealots as a buffer, it's very easy to warp in a HT in time. | ||
|
IVN
534 Posts
On November 06 2011 04:55 aksfjh wrote: The idea of KA was flawed in actual practice though. For both Terran and Zerg, starting the production of the iconic caster is an investment and risk, basically predicting you aren't going to be attacked in the next ~45s. At the very least, you won't need the abilities of the caster for the next ~45s. For Protoss, this removed all forward thinking of the HT out of the equation. If you needed storms, you just warped them in ~5s. There is no significant waiting period or forward thinking, just reaction. Especially with the archon buff, this would become an incredibly hard scenario to deal with for both Terran and Zerg. To address other arguments about gateways being on cooldown, we're beginning to see a metagame shift where gateways are being massed beyond the income potential of Protoss. This allows them to warp in units on demand when having to address harassment forces away from their main force. Thus, the cooldown for HTs becomes moot and the only barrier is gas income. On 2-3 bases, that gives harassment opportunity for 18s at most (only 7-11s for a medivac drop) if you're relying ONLY on HTs. With zealots as a buffer, it's very easy to warp in a HT in time. Races are different. Terran has the best defense in the game, zerg has the best production (remax in under a minute), so why is it wrong for protoss to have something equally potent? And no, warpgates are not, since they give you no defenders advantage, since they are balanced around timing attacks. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 06 2011 05:04 IVN wrote: Races are different. Terran has the best defense in the game, zerg has the best production (remax in under a minute), so why is it wrong for protoss to have something equally potent? And no, warpgates are not, since they give you no defenders advantage, since they are balanced around timing attacks. Protoss can warp in small defense forces ANYWHERE they have pylon power and the can remax in less than 5s. FFs and high AoE make attacking head on suicidal after a certain point in the game. But if you want to live in a world where the only advantage to gateway tech is 4 and 6 gate timing attacks, be my guest. It at least wouldn't be a surprise why you would want a massive buff to Protoss. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong. The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting. Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong. For literally 6 months not a single Terran player ever cried about KA. The crying about KA only came when Blizzard announced its removal simply out of the blue. This totally boggles my mind. Not only is it absolutely, confoundingly untrue, it makes my head hurt to even wonder why someone would ever lie so unconvincingly. Here's a thread from one year ago. Ironic...because it's the exact same thread as this one except the Protoss is arguing FOR KA removal. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=169438 | ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:04 _Search_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3msYqpQiNnc The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting. Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong. I don't get your youtube video at all. Let's make ONE type of unit from the Gateway, which is 'hard countered' by one of the barrack units, and let's use TWO of the barracks units. Try adding sentries into that mix and let's see who comes out ahead. | ||
|
IVN
534 Posts
On November 06 2011 05:56 aksfjh wrote: Protoss can warp in small defense forces ANYWHERE they have pylon power and the can remax in less than 5s. FFs and high AoE make attacking head on suicidal after a certain point in the game. But if you want to live in a world where the only advantage to gateway tech is 4 and 6 gate timing attacks, be my guest. It at least wouldn't be a surprise why you would want a massive buff to Protoss. It was already established, that warpgates must be balanced around attacking, therefore, they give yo no defender advantage. And you also cant remax in 5 sec, thats BS. FFs and AoE are not a plus, they are a necessity to survive. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:09 MonkSEA wrote: I don't get your youtube video at all. Let's make ONE type of unit from the Gateway, which is 'hard countered' by one of the barrack units, and let's use TWO of the barracks units. Try adding sentries into that mix and let's see who comes out ahead. Which rax unit hard counters chargelots? O_o | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:04 _Search_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3msYqpQiNnc The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting. Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong. This is when people tell this guy that he is awesome except that he forgot that terran should have medivacs by the time charge is out and that zealots are very good in small excursions {defending drops would be pretty lame if they werent} and the more bio you have the higher the dps output is because they are all ranged units, | ||
|
IVN
534 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:04 _Search_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3msYqpQiNnc The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting. Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong. Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:13 IVN wrote: It was already established, that warpgates must be balanced around attacking, therefore, they give yo no defender advantage. And you also cant remax in 5 sec, thats BS. FFs and AoE are not a plus, they are a necessity to survive. Warpgates on cooldown -> attack at 200/200 -> lose gateway units in attack -> warp in fresh set of wargate units in 5s When was it "established" that warpgates must be balanced around timing attacks? And since when do balances around timing attacks give you no defenders advantage? Defenders advantage takes into account positioning, reinforcement, and static defense. How warp gates would ignore even one of those aspects makes no sense. | ||
|
Jacobs Ladder
United States1705 Posts
On November 06 2011 04:15 Akhee wrote: storm is not even good, why would KA be OP? just get them back make a poll, lets vote ~~ Storm is great, I don't get P players saying its bad. It does a lot of damage, the problem is its so easily negated. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:04 _Search_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3msYqpQiNnc The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting. Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong. This totally boggles my mind. Not only is it absolutely, confoundingly untrue, it makes my head hurt to even wonder why someone would ever lie so unconvincingly. Here's a thread from one year ago. Ironic...because it's the exact same thread as this one except the Protoss is arguing FOR KA removal. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=169438 1) Utilizing a strawman argument is not a really good way to make yourself look good. You put Chargelots with a tier 2 upgrade vs Marine/Maurader without Medivacs. Really? LOL. Nice argument. How about this, you put a Max Gateway unit army composition vs Max Rax Composition and see who wins? Yeah. Exactly. Please don't make me fucking laugh. You have no Colossus/Storm vs Bio, you simply die. Period. 2) One example out of how many? I still have yet to see this supposedly overpowered KA argument that existed before the patch that removed it. There were not many Terran players complaining about it until around Spring time 2011 when KA got removed. 3) The thread was immediately shut down by Plexa because it provided no significant analysis of how or why KA was imbalanced despite the fact that at the time (which even the OP stated himself) Terran was absolutely assraping Protoss left and right. | ||
|
IVN
534 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:18 aksfjh wrote: Warpgates on cooldown -> attack at 200/200 -> lose gateway units in attack -> warp in fresh set of wargate units in 5s When was it "established" that warpgates must be balanced around timing attacks? And since when do balances around timing attacks give you no defenders advantage? Defenders advantage takes into account positioning, reinforcement, and static defense. How warp gates would ignore even one of those aspects makes no sense. 1) That wont let you remax in 5 sec. 2) It was discussed to death in many threads, and even terran and zerg players agreed that due to being balanced around attacking, warpgates dont give porotoss any defenders advantage. Its quite simple, if WGs warp to any location with equal speed/efficiency, and that speed/cooldown is balanced so that protoss dont have an advantage over Z or T while attacking (means toss production has to be somewhat slower), then wehn your defending as a protoss, you have no defenders advantage. Whether you are fighting and warping in the middle of the map, or at your natural, its the same. And protoss also dont have bunkers or creep, therefore no "home-field advantage". | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3682 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote: Which rax unit hard counters chargelots? O_o The one that zealots are supposed to counter once it gets a tier 1 upgrade and the other one that is good against almost every unit in the game. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:17 IVN wrote: Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size. And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate). Either way the size is irrelevant. The point I made was that bio is more cost-efficient under certain circumstances and gateway units are more cost-efficient...under certain circumstances. Zealots are THE most cost-efficient unit in the game, so long as they connect. If they're kited to death, they're useless, if not, you just bought the highest tier 1 DPS in the game in a 150 hp, 1 armor unit for 100 minerals. It is a common Protoss lie to say that Terran tier 1 is always better than Protoss tier 1, which is why they need such powerful upper tier tech, such as imba KA. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On November 06 2011 06:31 _Search_ wrote: And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate). Either way the size is irrelevant. The point I made was that bio is more cost-efficient under certain circumstances and gateway units are more cost-efficient...under certain circumstances. Zealots are THE most cost-efficient unit in the game, so long as they connect. If they're kited to death, they're useless, if not, you just bought the highest tier 1 DPS in the game in a 150 hp, 1 armor unit for 100 minerals. It is a common Protoss lie to say that Terran tier 1 is always better than Protoss tier 1, which is why they need such powerful upper tier tech, such as imba KA. I can't seriously believe you are trying to say that Gateway units are more cost effective than Terran barracks units. Theorycrafting is nice and all, but the reality is that Gateway units are totally cost inefficient, especially against Terran barracks units. If Gateway units WERE cost efficient, you'd see Protoss players spamming the living shit out of them. And two, Chargelots in a real game get kited to death almost every single time. The only reason why they are good as that they just don't fucking die and can tank shots which allows your Colossus/HT enough time to dish out DPS. Except, Terran players figured out why the fuck do I have to Kite when I can just EMP 10 times and A-Move to victory. Seriously, this whole ring around the rosie dance around the statistics shit has to stop. Team Liquid is better than this. You have a fucking YEAR of RAW statistics right in front of you stating that KA was pivotal and key in preventing Protoss from getting absolutely rolled (which they are right now at the moment). At best, KA allowed the match-up to remain at 50/50, and Terran hadn't even figured out how to fully play their race yet. And yet here we are, with a bunch of Terran defenders/Protoss haters simply ignoring over tens of thousands of games played that pretty much is spitting all over any kind of notion that KA was imbalanced. The facts are in front of you. Period. I have a whole year of numbers to back up my claims. You have nothing but hearsay and opinion. You're not winning this argument, not now, not ever. | ||
| ||
