| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:48 secretary bird wrote: So if the upgrade buff was a nerf instead for the same 150/150 more instead of less there wouldnt be 500 pages of whining in this thread because it doesnt even matter? excellent point Of course the buff matters. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On November 08 2011 23:56 yeint wrote: 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. But the guy I was responding to WAS arguing that ghosts doing this is downright horrific. 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". 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. 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". Well I guess if that's all you're really saying, then I don't have much of a problem with using the specific numbers in your example. In that case, it is okay to play with numbers in a "vacuum scenario". But that leads me to ask... If his comment was indeed so utterly inane and senseless as you've now explained, why'd you bother responding. It sure seemed like you were commenting on the effectiveness of ghosts based on their cost. As for including unit cost in comparisons -- obviously it becomes very important when you look at a stupid extreme, such as ultras costing 100/100. The "ignore costs" argument works when discussing how units function within an army vs. other units within an army for reasons you've shown you understand. It does not work when looking at a units through the "map tester" lens, as you've also shown you understand. | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:48 secretary bird wrote: So if the upgrade buff was a nerf instead for the same 150/150 more instead of less there wouldnt be 500 pages of whining in this thread because it doesnt even matter? There would be 500 pages of whining about how it doesn't make any sense to nerf Protoss upgrades regardless of it's effect size. If people were complaining about how Protoss didn't need their upgrades buffed, even the slighest bit, I wouldn't care at all, but people are whining that this somehow is a massive buff to the Protoss army, and that's completely untrue. On November 09 2011 00:50 Quotidian wrote: excellent point Of course the buff matters. Yes the buff matters, but in the most insignificant way. | ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
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. 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. I'm all for checking cost-efficiency with a few calculations, but ultralisks are a late-game 6 supply unit that only attacks within melee range. Resource-efficiency is fine and dandy, but those 1.68 ghosts cost 3.36 supply. Ghosts are extremely cost-efficient (AND supply-efficient) against infestors, brood lords, mutalisks and - for what that's worth - hydralisks. This leaves just T1 units and ultralisks. You pretty much have to pick between roaches and ultralisks (different attack upgrades, but mostly no synergy between those units). Since T1 zerg dies to siege tanks, T can essentially force ultralisks. This is horrible, because Z is now stuck replying to ghost with an unit that is supply-inefficient, gets less useful as it is massed up and has no way to put pressure without going all-in. This is just a reaction to blind ghosts scenario, mind. Things are probably worse if ghosts get made because there is something for them to counter (any gas-heavy unit that isn't banelings or ultralisks). To sum it up: late-game ghosts force a single, specific melee composition against which they're even supply efficient (and aren't horribly cost-inefficient). This looks extremely problematic. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:45 Quotidian wrote: bullshit I'm getting so tired of protoss players acting like victims.. there's nothing "minimal" about any of the buffs they've received for the last few patches. We clearly disagree then. No need to write a vulgar, one word reply to only part of my post, then quickly edit in a general whine about Protoss players and an umbrella statement about buffs. I think most Protoss buffs have been fairly small and mostly just nods to enourage useage of X unit or Y strat. Blizzard hasn't changed the way Protoss works on any great level for the better. | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:18 The_DarkAngelz wrote: lol...but your argument is unfunded, because mules can deliver more income for SURE. A lot more....in the mega-late game terran doesn't need SCV at all ! lol If there were God's in SC2, The Mule would be the terran God. And every non Terran is afraid for our God. Everybody seems to think that because of our God we have an unlimited amount of minerals. | ||
|
Sphen5117
United States413 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:58 SeaSwift wrote: We clearly disagree then. No need to write a vulgar, one word reply to only part of my post, then quickly edit in a general whine about Protoss players and an umbrella statement about buffs. I think most Protoss buffs have been fairly small and mostly just nods to enourage useage of X unit or Y strat. Blizzard hasn't changed the way Protoss works on any great level for the better. This. Getting enough minerals for one more stalker, after a couple of upgrades (thus not even in the early game), is in fact minimal. Making you terrans have to use 4-ish EMP's instead of 2 to blanket our army is minimal. The DESIGN of the ghost is screwed, not the little number tweaks. At first I was just indifferent to this patch, knowing it won't change anything, but now I'm almost upset that ANOTHER patch went by without Blizzard doing crap to fix their problems. I honestly have no idea what the delay is. | ||
|
cold-
Canada209 Posts
lets lessen the cost of upgrades which promotes the attack move deathball instead of having to use high templar storms which actually requires skill | ||
|
AceOfSpaces
Brazil37 Posts
| ||
|
Sphen5117
United States413 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:55 Meff wrote: I'm all for checking cost-efficiency with a few calculations, but ultralisks are a late-game 6 supply unit that only attacks within melee range. Resource-efficiency is fine and dandy, but those 1.68 ghosts cost 3.36 supply. Ghosts are extremely cost-efficient (AND supply-efficient) against infestors, brood lords, mutalisks and - for what that's worth - hydralisks. This leaves just T1 units and ultralisks. You pretty much have to pick between roaches and ultralisks (different attack upgrades, but mostly no synergy between those units). Since T1 zerg dies to siege tanks, T can essentially force ultralisks. This is horrible, because Z is now stuck replying to ghost with an unit that is supply-inefficient, gets less useful as it is massed up and has no way to put pressure without going all-in. This is just a reaction to blind ghosts scenario, mind. Things are probably worse if ghosts get made because there is something for them to counter (any gas-heavy unit that isn't banelings or ultralisks). To sum it up: late-game ghosts force a single, specific melee composition against which they're even supply efficient (and aren't horribly cost-inefficient). This looks extremely problematic. I agree whole heartedley, and as a Protoss. When the only endgame unit you need to throw in is a ghost, it's messed up. Protoss HAVE to get Colossi or HT's, nearly everygame that goes past like 12 minutes. Zerg SOMETIMES HAVE to get Broodlords or Ultras. Terrans RARELY need their Tier 3 tech. Balance issues much? | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:45 Quotidian wrote: bullshit - it has made warp prisms extremely hard to deal with in all-in situations, or if you're caught out of position and get forcefielded out of your main, etc. For its utility, the shield buff was a major. The utility of the warp prism was always there, though. Protoss players just never bothered use it until Blizzard said "quit your bitching and use it already!" | ||
|
XRaDiiX
Canada1730 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:22 SoKHo wrote: The upgrade buff will ABSOLUTELY have no effect on your win % against toss. 3-4 seconds faster +2 doesn't have any effect on Masters. More miniscule timings variations have a larger effect on Masters and up; its just common sense. | ||
|
TheAwesomeAll
Netherlands1609 Posts
| ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:02 cold- wrote: this is a huge buff, not sure if you realize this lets lessen the cost of upgrades which promotes the attack move deathball instead of having to use high templar storms which actually requires skill Yes, and next patch, the thor will cost 295 minerals instead of 300. That will be so imba, because after producing 10 thors, you will have one more marine than before the patch and you will be able to make them 0.1 sec faster. Imba imba thor! | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:02 Sphen5117 wrote: This. Getting enough minerals for one more stalker, after a couple of upgrades (thus not even in the early game), is in fact minimal. Making you terrans have to use 4-ish EMP's instead of 2 to blanket our army is minimal. The DESIGN of the ghost is screwed, not the little number tweaks. At first I was just indifferent to this patch, knowing it won't change anything, but now I'm almost upset that ANOTHER patch went by without Blizzard doing crap to fix their problems. I honestly have no idea what the delay is. I dont want to say this to you personal, nor will I act as if every Protoss thinks this way. But let me say this. Now that the upgrades are cheaper the difference is minimal, to wich I agree. But for over a year I have heard Protoss screaming that their upgrades are so expansive. "OMG, Charge is so expansive, it costs 200/200 while all the Marauder upgrades only cost 150/150. its so unfair QQ, TT" So from now on, I hope to never hear again that the Terran upgrades are so much cheaper, and that it is unfair. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2578 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:50 Quotidian wrote: excellent point Of course the buff matters. Not an excellent point. If the buff were a nerf instead, there would still be ignorant people in here claiming it made a huge difference and the rest of us would be arguing that it just doesn't really matter. The only thing that would change are the races played by the people who think it's great and the people who think it's awful. So many people are getting all worked up because this is supposedly going to make some kind of big difference in their vP matchups. How? We're reasonable people: Upload one replay of you winning against a Protoss in the last patch where you would have lost if the Protoss had required 50/50 less to research +2/+2. Or one replay of you losing against a Protoss from the new patch. Or provide us with a build order timed out to take advantage of the price change such that it hits a vulnerable timing window that was previously not attainable. The reason you're all up in arms about the concept of a Protoss buff but unable to provide even a single cogent explanation of how it could cause you to lose a game is that no such explanation exists. I could conceive of this shifting the win/loss balance at the very highest levels by some fraction of a percent, where the presence of a single unit several seconds earlier is actually the kind of thing you sometimes notice, but no one arguing here that this buff is going to matter is playing at a level where that is true. The only difference you're going to see on ladder is that there will be more upgrade-heavy builds because of the attention this change draws. | ||
|
secretary bird
447 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:55 Meff wrote: I'm all for checking cost-efficiency with a few calculations, but ultralisks are a late-game 6 supply unit that only attacks within melee range. Resource-efficiency is fine and dandy, but those 1.68 ghosts cost 3.36 supply. Ghosts are extremely cost-efficient (AND supply-efficient) against infestors, brood lords, mutalisks and - for what that's worth - hydralisks. This leaves just T1 units and ultralisks. You pretty much have to pick between roaches and ultralisks (different attack upgrades, but mostly no synergy between those units). Since T1 zerg dies to siege tanks, T can essentially force ultralisks. This is horrible, because Z is now stuck replying to ghost with an unit that is supply-inefficient, gets less useful as it is massed up and has no way to put pressure without going all-in. This is just a reaction to blind ghosts scenario, mind. Things are probably worse if ghosts get made because there is something for them to counter (any gas-heavy unit that isn't banelings or ultralisks). To sum it up: late-game ghosts force a single, specific melee composition against which they're even supply efficient (and aren't horribly cost-inefficient). This looks extremely problematic. Dont let your opponent get whatever he wants, mass ghosts and tanks are in the 30 voidray department. Do you have any evidence for this or did you just see the 1-2 gsl TvZ games which were won because of ghosts because infestor broodlord dominates way more often and no one is going to nerf that. | ||
|
secretary bird
447 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:04 Sphen5117 wrote: I agree whole heartedley, and as a Protoss. When the only endgame unit you need to throw in is a ghost, it's messed up. Protoss HAVE to get Colossi or HT's, nearly everygame that goes past like 12 minutes. Zerg SOMETIMES HAVE to get Broodlords or Ultras. Terrans RARELY need their Tier 3 tech. Balance issues much? Terran T3 is useless thats the difference. | ||
|
s3rp
Germany3192 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:04 Sphen5117 wrote: I agree whole heartedley, and as a Protoss. When the only endgame unit you need to throw in is a ghost, it's messed up. Protoss HAVE to get Colossi or HT's, nearly everygame that goes past like 12 minutes. Zerg SOMETIMES HAVE to get Broodlords or Ultras. Terrans RARELY need their Tier 3 tech. Balance issues much? Terran T3 are BAD thatswhy they are not build .... | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:13 secretary bird wrote: Terran T3 is useless thats the difference. *snort* What a bad argument. So Ultralisks and Carriers are really useful? He was saying that Terran doesn't seem to have to use T3 to win a lot in pro games - whether or not the T3 is bad or good is irrelevant to his argument. Costs can be changed. He seemed to be arguing more from a game design PoV rather than pure balance. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
