|
On March 03 2012 03:03 mEtRoSG wrote: its time for the first protoss nerf in the history of sc2! :D
Yeah the first, except for KA, warpgate research time, blink research time and voidrays, voidrays and voidrays.
|
On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level.
Edit: Grammer
|
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer
Balance is different for different skill levels thats just how it is.
|
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level.
at first i thought: it makes sense. but: with this statement you say as well that you can only achieve the shown winrates if you are at the skill level of the top players :O you already know that this is neither possible nor can this be intended through game design.
|
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer
Or you could play Protoss instead... jk
I guess people just jump into conclusions with these graphics. Balance decisions should be made using a more analytical process, not only taking into account raw numbers.
My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion.
|
On March 03 2012 03:46 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer Or you could play Protoss instead... jk I guess people just jump into conclusions with these graphics. Balance decisions should be made using a more analytical process, not only taking into account raw numbers. My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion. the difference being, that there were 15 (?) months of data for Terran having higher winrates, compared to 1 of Protoss right now. I agree that it's double standards to say that "the game is balanced now" while it was imbalanced last month, but for all we know is, that Protoss has been doing very well one month.
|
On March 03 2012 03:46 petro1987 wrote: My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion.
Unfortunately, you can't argue against the Internet like it's a single person, with a coherent line of thought. Pointing at the Internet and saying "you are hypocritical!" is like pointing at your cat and saying it has fur. Kind of goes without saying, unless your cat is bald or non-existent.
|
Dat protoss.
Aligns with my personal experience in watching pro streams, replays, tournaments... Terrans are doing better than they appear? Kind of?
|
On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that?
Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame.
|
On March 03 2012 03:45 eighteen8 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote:nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. at first i thought: it makes sense. but: with this statement you say as well that you can only achieve the shown winrates if you are at the skill level of the top players :O you already know that this is neither possible nor can this be intended through game design.
I did not say that. You made the argument that the game is not balanced for you, at your skill level. This means that you somehow feel that the some of the players who beat you are somehow less skilled that you, but are abusing some imbalance to win games. People make this argument all the time, that less talented players beat them and it is the games fault for this. There are parts of the game where one race has an advantage, but it is your job as a player, to be aware of these. If you have a poor win rate against a specific race, that is a bad match up. Not imbalance because you are in a specific league.
More importantly, if people with higher skill levels than you can have win rates at 50%, you should be asking "why is the game not balanced for me?" You should be asking, "what can I do, at my skill level, to be more like them?"
|
On March 03 2012 03:10 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:03 Destructicon wrote: I know PvP is a really terrible MU as well and very indicative of the short comings of the race, and I've often theorized on how it could be improved as well.
But I loathe to post any of this on battle.net forums, what's the point? The vast majority of players will not understand, they'll still be stuck in their "x race OP" mindset, they won't have the reference points and mental frame to make sense of it. And there is no guarantee Blizzard will read it, so what is the point? So some bronze noobs can come and complain to me how I don't know anything and terran or zerg are OP? No thanks. If I knew for for a fact the devs would truly read it, and that they might act upon it, I'd be happy, but I don't think that will ever happen. You need to know people to make the wheels turn. Yeah. PvP really needs to be fixed. I thought it would settle and become less knife-edge, less BO dependant, but instead it seems to have become more so. At least when everyone 4gated it came down to micro, now it mostly comes down to who picked the right build order. Just change Protoss a bit so that there is a stable build for PvP, that is fun to watch and doesn't straight out die to certain BOs. Don't make that the ONLY build viable, but make it so that it is the standard, and any variation on that is unusual. I don't even mind the lack of macro games. I don't mind the lack of high tech units, or big army battles. What I do mind is how notoriously ridiculous the matchup is, in terms of stability, build orders and guesswork.
Well the first solution is to make sure BO wins are not so important. Second of all, if the matchup is to become fun to watch there needs to be a counter to collosi, or atleast something that will stop the collosi massing. The matchup is just so stale in end game.
|
Protoss players finally having a good month. Been a long time since protoss was doing so good.
|
On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame.
I would not do that or change units that are useful in the match up. I also do not like making more "key" units(the ghost) force the terran to rely on the placement of a few spells or denying storms. It would be better to improve unused units for terran to provide them with a more robust late game. A late game upgrade for tanks that work against shields, buff the raven or make it have less mana. Any to make the match up more interesting in the late game.
|
Funny, if you had listened to many protoss posters over the past month you may have gotten the mistaken idea that mutalisks had completely unbalanced PvZ.
|
@ Logros you have to remember how in the round of 16, DRG was the only Zerg left. Just so happens that DRG is a sick nerd-baller so he made it to the finals!
|
On March 03 2012 04:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote:On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. I would not do that or change units that are useful in the match up. I also do not like making more "key" units(the ghost) force the terran to rely on the placement of a few spells or denying storms. It would be better to improve unused units for terran to provide them with a more robust late game. A late game upgrade for tanks that work against shields, buff the raven or make it have less mana. Any to make the match up more interesting in the late game.
Reduce mana for Raven, reduce the mana cost of its spells appropriately. Then increase HSM range by a little bit, and its damage by a little bit.
Voila, a viable tech path for lategame TvX.
|
For the first time ever, terran is below 50%.
|
looks good, korean rates seem to argue zerg up, but I believe that will fix itself within a few months through metagame, strategies and maps.
besides, toss has been the underdog since... a long time. toss dominance was inevitably going to happen at some point.
and yes, this is a zerg talking.
|
Couldn't they atleast fix protoss all ins? I don't know many zergs and terrans who enjoy playing against protoss just because of the amount of all ins a protoss player has at it's disposal. Only for PvT I can think of 8+ already, which are all equally viable and just straight up kill you if you don't prepare for them. It would make the matchup just more enjoyable.
|
protoss nerf incoming?
disturbing PvT differential... of course it's possible for T to win, but there's an underlying unit mismatch..
imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units.
even immortals are completely broken... for same cost/supply they kill all terran ground units... only banshee can kill immortals cost effectively... data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt=""
if terran didn't have such brute strength pre-AOE timing attacks, the differential would be massive in P favour.
|
|
|
|