|
On November 08 2011 22:59 NoodleFish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 08:26 justiceknight wrote:
SEA server has 1.4.2 patch now
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty - Patch 1.4.2
• Play-Time Schedule under Parental Controls now applies World of Warcraft settings to StarCraft II
No mention of this in the first 11 pages of posts, so I was just wondering what they mean by this? I'm not a WoW player, so I don't have a clue. Might be useful for controlling my urges during exams (play time wise, not parental control lol)
To register an account if you're not old enough you need a parental account to be set up to register a second account for you. That second account has settings such as can they use real ID, who can message/add them, maximum play time and a couple of other things. So yeah, I'm not sure you could apply it to yourself unless you made an account as a minor, set your main account to control it, change the settings on that, buy an account for the new user, and then play without logging on to your main and changing the setting back - which is a really contrived way to just not play. 
|
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 22:36 FallDownMarigold wrote:
tl;dr I don't disagree with you on ghosts and their use, I just sorely disagree with your painfully bad use of numbers to say something about the overall utility of the ghost vs. ultra/BL/whatever
Look, it takes X number of ghosts to kill ultras dead. That's a fact. That is their utility. Their utility is also that they can do the same thing to BOTH hive tech units, unlike marauders/thors/vikings. This is not arguable. This is what I was pointing out. I used precise numbers for full energy ghosts, which is an unrealistic best case scenario. Even in this unrealistic best case scenario, the number of ghosts needed to kill 1 ultralisk have the same resource cost. Now, if someone complains that the ghost can do this, they need to justify their complaint with something. Are ghosts too cheap? Are ghosts too easy to get? Can ghosts kill every single Zerg composition with ease? I am arguing that the answer is no, no, and no. I am arguing that while ghosts are a problematic unit worthy of discussion in TvP, they are completely working as intended in TvZ.
It's nice for once that someone points out the math behind Ghosts vs Hive Tech.
The general mentality I see on most discussions on the Ghosts are that other players assume that it'll be Cloaked, have lots of energy. Not to mention that Terran has tons of APM to do nothing but spam chain-Snipe while Splitting Marines, Kiting Marines, Tank-Focus Firing. All of this while Zerg sits there and does not react and watches his units get Sniped off.
Yeah, like this is how the scenario goes every time.
|
Now My win rate Vs Masters Protoss will just be 10 % instead of 20%. Sad Zergling 
|
I like where you are taking this. One thing though -- replacing numbers with variables does not change the underlying fault in the logic! The problem was not the value of "1.65" or "X" -- the problem was utilizing that logic, period.
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:
Look, it takes X number of ghosts to kill ultras dead. That's a fact. That is their utility.
No. It takes "X" ghosts to kill "Y" unit in a map tester where no other variables exist. Stop using this flawed logic when referring to live play. You may only use this logic when referring to the unit tester. What if it takes [X * 1.05] ghosts to "kill ultras dead" given some unpredictable factor, such as an upgrade, micro, or dare I say--another unit being involved? Multiple units? Get over it, you can't use this simple type of logic to explain live-play aspects of the game. Explaining unit differences by considering only "X number of Y units defeats A number of B units" within the confines of a map tester is fine.
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:
Their utility is also that they can do the same thing to BOTH hive tech units, unlike marauders/thors/vikings. This is not arguable. This is what I was pointing out.
Yes. I agree. This is the sort of analysis you CAN do without empirical evidence. In theory, ghosts can directly engage BOTH hive tech units. In theory, ghosts are a reasonable choice against both. I am not arguing against this, nor is anybody. I would be better off arguing that the water isn't liquid -- that's a more exciting and inflammatory argument that will also lead me nowhere. (I'm humoring you here...I agree though, you can't argue against basic facts such as what units are in-theory good against others; e.g. ling vs. baneling, etc).
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:
I used precise numbers for full energy ghosts, which is an unrealistic best case scenario. Even in this unrealistic best case scenario, the number of ghosts needed to kill 1 ultralisk have the same resource cost.
Right, which is exactly the point at which you some of your meaning and power in your point. You can't consider specific scenarios, best case or otherwise, when talking about the general role or total effectiveness of a unit against another race. Think about what you're saying -- does it even mean anything to say "in the best possible scenario, ghosts have same resource cost effectiveness". Remember, we aren't playing in a map tester where we have "ghosts vs. ultras". I would just completely let go of the notion of explaining the concept by looking at cost, because otherwise I agree with what you're saying.
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:
Now, if someone complains that the ghost can do this, they need to justify their complaint with something. Are ghosts too cheap? Are ghosts too easy to get? Can ghosts kill every single Zerg composition with ease?
If somebody complains about that, tell them to test it in a unit tester and be done with it. If they complain about ghosts being too powerful in the matchup of TvZ, then indeed they do need to justify it based on empirical experience just as you say -- and not on numbers! In fact, that's what makes balancing difficult. In my opinion, ghosts will receive additional adjustments. They are one of the few units that have yet to be fully explored I think.
On November 08 2011 22:47 yeint wrote:
I am arguing that the answer is no, no, and no. I am arguing that while ghosts are a problematic unit worthy of discussion in TvP, they are completely working as intended in TvZ.
That might be the case! But don't use mathematical logic to justify your hunch. It really boils down to dissecting pro-level play and looking at how units are used in those games. We'll see as play progresses!
|
On November 08 2011 22:12 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 21:53 Quotidian wrote:
I'm guessing everybody watched Oz in the GSL just now.. that was the power of upgrades - and that was pre-buff. It's retarded. It's obvious that protoss doesn't need a buff to their upgrades, even if it is just a stimulus buff like what they're doing now. The fact that Blizzard keeps doing buffs to stimulate play is in itself completely wrong - they should just let the game evolve on its own instead of patching every other month to stimulate the player base to keep playing, like this is WOW or something...
We're going back to the days where terran never, ever wants to play a macro game vs protoss. Thanks for that, Blizzard. You're right. Because Taeja played the perfect macro game and then Oz just 1a'ed his way through perfect splitting, on target EMPs, focus-firing Vikings and a flanking army all whilst dealing with a drop in his main and being on equal economy to Oz. YOU'RE RIGHT, in that you have no idea. Upgrades were like 2-3 to 2-2 at the end I believe, and Oz actually did some amazing things like pressure the front and make more expansions. If the races were reversed, same thing would have happened on macro alone. Oz had built himself a strong position into the 1 battle, and he won using micro, macro and having better decision making than his opponent. Don't insult players who won on their better play. Taeja and Nada (if you want to look at both) did nothing more impressive than Oz in either game.
I never said Nada or Taeja were impressive, I'm saying that protoss upgrades obviously don't need a (stimulus) patch
|
How can anyone argue that the upgrade differences that are being implemented in this patch are going to break a match-up or make a Protoss army too strong? The level one weapon and armor upgrades are unchanged, and the speed in which the upgrades complete are not being changed. In PvZ and PvT, once you start upgrading, you want to be continuously upgrading, there isn't a time where you stop upgrading because you simply cannot afford it - upgrades are prioritized. The only time I think any Protoss stops upgrading from a forge is when they simply forget, are distracted, or in the rare scenario where they need every spare mineral and gas to defend themselves.
The differences in price are 75/75 mineral/gas to get to level 3 weapon and armor - that's probably less than 10 seconds that is being saved during the entire duration it takes to get from level 1 to level 3 upgrades. If you're seriously arguing that this breaks anything, you're delusional.
|
On November 08 2011 21:53 Quotidian wrote:
I'm guessing everybody watched Oz in the GSL just now.. that was the power of upgrades - and that was pre-buff. It's retarded. It's obvious that protoss doesn't need a buff to their upgrades, even if it is just a stimulus buff like what they're doing now. The fact that Blizzard keeps doing buffs to stimulate play is in itself completely wrong - they should just let the game evolve on its own instead of patching every other month to stimulate the player base to keep playing, like this is WOW or something...
We're going back to the days where terran never, ever wants to play a macro game vs protoss. Thanks for that, Blizzard.
OZ won that game because he had a third up super early and Taeja neither punished it or got his own third up quickly enough. That's exactly how a game should play out- an economic risk should pay off in giving a player a big army and tech advantage unless he does something horribly wrong.
There are seven terrans in the GSL ro16 so far and only two protoss. Terran have a better win rate against protoss not just in Korea but in tournaments worldwide and have had a better win rate since May. You as a terran fan have no reason to compain. None at all.
I guess people like you won't be happy though until there are no protoss left in any high-level competitions.
|
On November 08 2011 23:32 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 21:53 Quotidian wrote:
I'm guessing everybody watched Oz in the GSL just now.. that was the power of upgrades - and that was pre-buff. It's retarded. It's obvious that protoss doesn't need a buff to their upgrades, even if it is just a stimulus buff like what they're doing now. The fact that Blizzard keeps doing buffs to stimulate play is in itself completely wrong - they should just let the game evolve on its own instead of patching every other month to stimulate the player base to keep playing, like this is WOW or something...
We're going back to the days where terran never, ever wants to play a macro game vs protoss. Thanks for that, Blizzard. OZ won that game because he had a third up super early and Taeja neither punished it or got his own third up quickly enough. That's exactly how a game should play out- an economic risk should pay off in giving a player a big army and tech advantage unless he does something horribly wrong. There are seven terrans in the GSL ro16 so far and only two protoss. Terran have a better win rate against protoss not just in Korea but in tournaments worldwide and have had a better win rate since May. You as a terran fan have no reason to compain. None at all. I guess people like you won't be happy though until there are no protoss left in any high-level competitions.
took the words right out of my mouth.
Personally I dont mind the patch. Reducing AoE of EMP makes sense
|
I've said it before: I'd REALLY like to know whether Blizzard reads these forums often when trying to guage balance. They must realise that Teamliquid will have a higher number of intelligent and clear-thinking posters than the B.net forums.
If anyone from Blizzard is reading this: good job. The EMP nerf was a long time coming, and there was no reason for it's radius to be greater than Psi-Storm either. I'm still worried about PvZ, but we'll see. I think P is in trouble because of a mix of metagame and imbalance, but I guess we'll find out over time if the average winrate increases.
|
Its a good patch for esports just a little annoying if you play the game because any Protoss with 50+ apm is already in masters.
|
I stoped watch GSL because the numbers of Terran players...and i personally don't like TvT that much...
so...
I'd love to se more no-mirror matches (i don't know but mirror matches are kinda boring....PvP terrible, zvz is matter of one baneling and TvT entire is boring (don't know why i hate this match-up i used to like it but not anymore)
Sad marine face...
|
lol, protoss can now chrono boost 2/2 army 6 gate 2 base timing attack SO QUICKLY. Lost to it three times already on the PTR, now it's on ladder?
QQQ :-(
|
On November 08 2011 23:47 malaan wrote:
lol, protoss can now chrono boost 2/2 army 6 gate 2 base timing attack SO QUICKLY. Lost to it three times already on the PTR, now it's on ladder?
QQQ :-(
As a matter of fact, 2/2 protoss is behind of upgrades uppon a 2/2 terran force....because shields will have zero armor. and a ghost or two can inutilize shields entirely, not to mention energy from sentries !
and i didnot mention stimpack !
by the way the time of research has not changed and plus 2 armour and attack difference in minerals and gas for protoss is not that great...
|
On November 08 2011 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The cheaper upgrades is so overhyped it's ridiculous.
Chronoboost and the fact that P doesn't have to choose between bio/mech or ranged/melee makes an upgrade buff ridiculous. That's like buffing the marine.
|
lol they actually went through with it, ok
|
On November 08 2011 23:47 malaan wrote:
lol, protoss can now chrono boost 2/2 army 6 gate 2 base timing attack SO QUICKLY. Lost to it three times already on the PTR, now it's on ladder?
QQQ :-(
You do realize it's only fixed costs that were reduced?
Your opponents could have done exactly the same thing before 1.4.2, except they get 1 zealot instead of 1 stalker.
Sounds like a classic case of placebo effect.
I mean, P upgrades definitely got a buff, but it's nowhere near as significant as many people are making it out to be.
|
It's as if I wasn't having enough problems with Toss already XD, it's funny how my own win-rate is in strong contrast to what is happening in the higher levels.
|
On November 08 2011 23:53 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 23:47 malaan wrote:
lol, protoss can now chrono boost 2/2 army 6 gate 2 base timing attack SO QUICKLY. Lost to it three times already on the PTR, now it's on ladder?
QQQ :-( You do realize it's only fixed costs that were reduced? Your opponents could have done exactly the same thing before 1.4.2, except they get 1 zealot instead of 1 stalker. Sounds like a classic case of placebo effect.
I do...i never said anything like that time has changed...
i'm only saying that a 2/2 terran upgrades is more strong then 2/2/0 protoss upgrades...which is true...because protoss half life will not have the plus 2 armor !
|
On November 08 2011 23:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No. It takes "X" ghosts to kill "Y" unit in a map tester where no other variables exist. Stop using this flawed logic when referring to live play. You may only use this logic when referring to the unit tester. What if it takes [X * 1.05] ghosts to "kill ultras dead" given some unpredictable factor, such as an upgrade, micro, or dare I say--another unit being involved? Multiple units? Get over it, you can't use this simple type of logic to explain live-play aspects of the game. Explaining unit differences by considering only "X number of Y units defeats A number of B units" within the confines of a map tester is fine.
This is a completely irrelevant argument. Whether this Ultra is also being fired on by a marine or a tank is irrelevant, because the Ultra is not fighting in a vacuum either, and has support from other units. But clearly if ghosts cost 50/50, they would be overpowered because of how much cheaper they are than ultras.
I was specifically responding to a person who said ghost snipe is "horrific" in how quickly it kills an Ultralisk. I just pointed out how many snipes it takes to actually do that, and what the cost of the units are.
That's it. I do not intend for it to be a commentary on late game compositions, I simply intend for it to be a commentary about an obtuse comment that singles out a unit. If you want to single out units, let's do so and analyze their costs.
Yes. I agree. This is the sort of analysis you CAN do without empirical evidence. In theory, ghosts can directly engage BOTH hive tech units. In theory, ghosts are a reasonable choice against both. I am not arguing against this, nor is anybody. I would be better off arguing that the water isn't liquid -- that's a more exciting and inflammatory argument that will also lead me nowhere. (I'm humoring you here...I agree though, you can't argue against basic facts such as what units are in-theory good against others; e.g. ling vs. baneling, etc).
But the guy I was responding to WAS arguing that ghosts doing this is downright horrific.
Right, which is exactly the point at which you some of your meaning and power in your point. You can't consider specific scenarios, best case or otherwise, when talking about the general role or total effectiveness of a unit against another race. Think about what you're saying -- does it even mean anything to say "in the best possible scenario, ghosts have same resource cost effectiveness". Remember, we aren't playing in a map tester where we have "ghosts vs. ultras". I would just completely let go of the notion of explaining the concept by looking at cost, because otherwise I agree with what you're saying.
Again, I reiterate - how does your "ignore costs" argument work if ultralisks cost 100/100? Do you not agree that they would be incredibly overpowered at such a low cost? I wasn't comparing ultralisk cost to ghost cost because that should determine the outcome of them being included in army compositions, I compared them to point out that ghosts, in sufficient numbers to kill ultralisks, are quite expensive, in fact very similar to ultralisks themselves. The precise numbers are of course fluid, which is why I pointed out both 1 on 1, full energy unrealistic scenarios, as well as more realistic "3-4 ghosts will have enough energy to snipe one of the ultralisks".
If somebody complains about that, tell them to test it in a unit tester and be done with it. If they complain about ghosts being too powerful in the matchup of TvZ, then indeed they do need to justify it based on empirical experience just as you say -- and not on numbers! In fact, that's what makes balancing difficult.
But the specific argument I was responding to was "ghosts should not kill ultralisks with snipe", completely devoid of context. This argument only makes sense if ghosts are much cheaper than ultras. I pointed out that they're not. Hence his statement that ghosts shouldn't kill ultralisks is silly.
That might be the case! But don't use mathematical logic to justify your hunch. It really boils down to dissecting pro-level play and looking at how units are used in those games. We'll see as play progresses!
I was not trying to comment on the TvZ metagame using simple arithmetic. I was responding to a specific statement about specific units. If his complaint was "ghosts force a situation where Zerg is unable to win" then I wouldn't quote unit costs. His complaint was "ghosts should not kill my T3 units".
|
On November 08 2011 23:56 The_DarkAngelz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 23:53 Brotocol wrote:On November 08 2011 23:47 malaan wrote:
lol, protoss can now chrono boost 2/2 army 6 gate 2 base timing attack SO QUICKLY. Lost to it three times already on the PTR, now it's on ladder?
QQQ :-( You do realize it's only fixed costs that were reduced? Your opponents could have done exactly the same thing before 1.4.2, except they get 1 zealot instead of 1 stalker. Sounds like a classic case of placebo effect. I do...i never said anything like that time has changed... i'm only saying that a 2/2 terran upgrades is more strong then 2/2/0 protoss upgrades...which is true...because protoss half life will not have the plus 2 armor !
Oops, I accidentally quoted you, I was actually replying to the other guy. Fixed my quote now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
