EPTTLPD Winrates May 2012 - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sjperera
Canada349 Posts
| ||
|
Stress
United States980 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:43 Jaegeru wrote: As a terran i'm not going to take these too seriously at the moment before this weekend's MLG. If terran struggles to place well at MLG then alarm bells will start to ring. Have you been watching the GSTL? It is an omen for what is to come. I'm not surprised the TvZ winrate is skewed so bad. Blizzard really needs to make mech more viable(especially TvP). | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:56 Dodgin wrote: Talking about late-game TvZ and TvP, what do you think possible fixes are? Buffing Terran t3? ( un-nerfing snipe? buff bc? buff raven? ) or nerfing the other races? TvP - warpgate is too easy when both sides are maxed, everyone already has beat the dead horse on it, blizzard can do many things to change it or make the siege tank usable... TvZ - tweak the raven energy/upgrade costs/costs somewhere as well as make the HSM range equal to or even +1 infestor fungal growth range. It takes an insane amount of time to accumulate 125 energy for a spell that is only 100% effective vs broodlords, vs everything else it's a gamble. This would make lategame TvZ games not an automatic loss if you get your ravens fungalled once. Right now lategame when it's vs mass infestor broodlords is a game of "keepaway from the fungal growth or i lose everything." Because when mass infestors fungal on ravens, you can't even HSM the infestors / much else. Making equal range makes it so at least it may come out more of an even trade if they do fungal a bunch of ravens, since you can still HSM them. And obviously the queen change was overboard, it makes it too easy early game for Zerg. The overlord speed change was fine though. Not much else needs to change unless they want to tweak mech upgrade costs or change the tank so it's better again for TvP as well :D PvZ fixes needed: lategame comes down to "does the vortex win or lose the game," or "did i neural the mothership and waste his vortex." Incredibly dumb match-up when it reaches that point. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On June 08 2012 01:04 avilo wrote: TvZ - tweak the raven energy/upgrade costs/costs somewhere as well as make the HSM range equal to infestor fungal growth range. It takes an insane amount of time to accumulate 125 energy for a spell that is only 100% effective vs broodlords, vs everything else it's a gamble. You are 100% wrong here, avilo. It takes 2 HSM's to kill 1 broodlord. If the zerg spreads his broodlords out (which isn't that hard, come on), then it's far from cost effective. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On June 08 2012 01:06 Snowbear wrote: You are 100% wrong here, avilo. It takes 2 HSM's to kill 1 broodlord. If the zerg spreads his broodlords out (which isn't that hard, come on), then it's far from cost effective. I know it takes 2... ...do you really think i've never used a raven...*facepalms* I meant 100% effective as in it's the only unit from Zerg that you know the HSM will 100% hit and do damage to/kill. Everything else can either run away, kill the raven and make it a suicide raven, or run straight into your army making the HSM even worse. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
There is a reason blizzard doesn't produce these stats, iirc a redditor even made a post about crappy readings of stats once. The info is extremely useful, just not in a single month format. (i.e., look at the whole graph, blizzard is doing a good job of balancing in general) | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On June 08 2012 01:06 Snowbear wrote: You are 100% wrong here, avilo. It takes 2 HSM's to kill 1 broodlord. If the zerg spreads his broodlords out (which isn't that hard, come on), then it's far from cost effective. He means effective as in it will hit, while other units can run away. I don't think this is entirely true though. With the duration upgrade it can be pretty hard/disadvantageous to run from | ||
|
boxturtle
United States224 Posts
On June 08 2012 01:07 avilo wrote: I know it takes 2... ...do you really think i've never used a raven...*facepalms* I meant 100% effective as in it's the only unit from Zerg that you know the HSM will 100% hit and do damage to/kill. Everything else can either run away, kill the raven and make it a suicide raven, or run straight into your army making the HSM even worse. HSM having 9 range seems incredibly extreme. It'd be less balanced than simply not letting fungal hit air or something. Imagine what a 9 range HSM would look like. It may be horrifically disastrous in TvT against tanks. | ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_Global_StarCraft_II_Team_League_Season_2/Statistics | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On June 08 2012 01:14 boxturtle wrote: HSM having 9 range seems incredibly extreme. It'd be less balanced than simply not letting fungal hit air or something. Imagine what a 9 range HSM would look like. It may be horrifically disastrous in TvT against tanks. Durable material as basis Ravens faster Don't need more. I never understood why ravens were slow AS FUCK when Science Vessels were almost Muta speed. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:39 Crow! wrote: For those talking about 1-1-1, I'd like to point out that the Immortal range buff was pivotal in ending that particular reign of terror. Certainly there were also changes that had to happen in Protoss play, but without at least the threat of Immortals reaching the tanks P would still be under the gun. I'd respectfully disagree with that. It did help, but it's perfectly possible to defend a 1/1/1 without building any immortals. The combination of new maps with long rush distances (1/1/1 on close air Metalopolis is still a nightmare to hold) and Protosses coming to grips with the ridiculousness of the build (there were tons of games where Protoss would crush the first push and die to the second because he thought he was safe to tech) is what made the big difference, imo. Note that 1/1/1 is still very good, and used quite often in high-level TvP - but as a "once in a BoX surprise all-in", as opposed to "he's better than me so let me 1/1/1 every game and lol". The Immortal buff affected PvZ and PvP way more than PvT. | ||
|
Assaulter
Lithuania324 Posts
| ||
|
bucckevin
858 Posts
| ||
|
Falconblade
United States1035 Posts
And there's nothing wrong with Terran progamers whining. It's what every progamer has done since the start of the game, till eventually the reason for them to whine has fallen away. Perhaps Blizzard will take Terran whines into consideration now, since they have an excuse to do so. I fully expect a bunker construction time increase in response. | ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
The try BC argument is a joke..there's a reason that thing's only used in TvT. There isn't any other High-Tier unit with such a low range, slow speed and lack of AOE with a plethora of counters. I'd trade the Yamato for a super-nerfed version of the Campaign Missile Barrage. Then it might be useful. | ||
|
jeffvip
211 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:23 sagdashin wrote: Flash was correct! my thought exactly. How dare u all human being question the understanding of God? | ||
|
Berceno
Spain401 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:52 avilo wrote: It's obvious - there's still a lategame issue there regardless of the stats. I predict the PvT korean winrate to go back and forth between 55%-45% to 45%-55% many times, mostly because most of the time Terran wins before the 15 minute mark, or Protoss wins after that mark. Does that mean the match-up is fine and dandy and balanced? Not really. Because they still have done nothing to address the lategame TvP/TvZ. No race should *have* to do damage or be put at a free disadvantage. Every race should have equal opportunity to play a defensive macro style into lategame and not be put at a disadvantage. Terran early-mid game is strong, but contrary to popular belief/myth, Protoss/Zerg also have incredibly strong early-mid game/all-ins as well, so that argument does not fly anymore. Lategame T needs to be looked at. The stats are a bit more telling for TvZ that the queen change was way overkill obviously. I think that this is not the RTS you're looking for then | ||
|
CeliosB
Canada100 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On June 08 2012 00:19 Gosi wrote: Do you mean that the game is being butchered just because of Blizzard's patching or do you think it's also because of the game design that allows the current meta being like it is? With that I mean like the ZvT 2 evo mass ling infestor style and the 12 min 200/200 roach ZvP that both made the matchups alot less exciting to watch and play (imo)? The only non-mirror matchup that actually have evolved for the good is PvT like you said. It still has its problems because of Blizzard's design of Protoss and some Terran units but compare it to one year ago and it's fucking great. Can't say the same about TvZ and ZvP tho. TvZ went from really fucking good to very stale and ZvP is actually completely broken design vise. Writing on a phone so plz forgive typos. Even though a lot of Blizzard's game design philosophy was batshit insane and many decisions they have made were stupid beyond belief to anyone with a brood war history, the players and mapmakers worked around it and for a while we had a really fun game to watch. However, this could not last as holes in the game design blwere figured out and exploitex further and further. The patching is making it worse because blizzard's balance team is either not understanding the core issues at hand and is using bandaid fixes for surface-level problems, or they are working under far too constricting constraints due to not being able to change core fundamentals or being forced to have the game design lead into what has already been developed for HotS. Some suggested changes off the top of my head (ideally some but not all would be implemented) -larva inject change to 3 larvae instead of 4 (wont get changed because would likely require large scale rebalancing) -creep tumors do not reproduce so each tumor gets placed by a queen (wont get implemented because newbies would suck at it even though I am 100% confident pros would be able to manage as they already make extra queenz) -warp gate warpin time scales based on distance to gateway executing warpin (i.e. instant right nex to warpgate but ~20 secs across large map instead of flat 5 secs). Would also need the ability to cancel warpins. Would still allow cool proxy play for faster warpins (wont be implemented most likely because it would be too confusing to newbies) -gateway build time of units made 5 secs shorter than cooldown time on warpgate of same unit to give incentive/reason to switch back when playing defensively (wont be implemented maybe cause too difficult for newbies??? Dunno pretty lame excuse) -infestor fungal immobilize change to 90% slow but range increased to 10 and duration increased -queen range buff undone obviously.... -mule change to not be able to mine from the same mineral patch as an scv at the same time -nydus worm cancellable -hellion attack delay reduced or removed (anyone remember the vulture??) -automated abilities removed (do not allow autorepair, autounburrow, autobuild interceptors, etc) -change vortex so that instead of making the units disappear for 10 secs they just get sucked into 1 spot but are not immobolized or anything. Due to the massive reduction in effectiveness allow multiple mships to be built or rexuce cost/build time Just some thoughts off the top of my head to make sc2 more balanced/a better spectator esport. I'm sure there are others but this is what came to mind right now | ||
| ||
