EPTOn August 14 2012 12:41 aksfjh wrote:
That argument worked so well in diffusing the ghost nerf...
That argument worked so well in diffusing the ghost nerf...
Did ghosts get a speed buff? I don't follow, sorry.
Call To Action: Balance Testing TvZ. - Page 70
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
Did ghosts get a speed buff? I don't follow, sorry. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25107 Posts
On August 14 2012 12:43 Ziggitz wrote: When the win rates are on your side, use the win rates, when the meta game supports your side, use the meta game, when none are in your favor, bang your hands on the table and yell really loudly(Or post in every remotely balance related thread every waking moment of the day). That or play the game, watch games and make judgements accordingly, as some people like to, and are entitled to do | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 14 2012 12:44 plogamer wrote: Did ghosts get a speed buff? I don't follow, sorry. Yes, -20 damage to Snipe so they could carry lighter cartridges. Unfortunately, Ghosts decided against moving faster after this change. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 14 2012 12:44 plogamer wrote: Did ghosts get a speed buff? I don't follow, sorry. When protoss/zerg complained about EMP and it was nerfed. Spreading HTs and infestors was too hard, so it was nerfed. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 14 2012 13:11 aksfjh wrote: When protoss/zerg complained about EMP and it was nerfed. Spreading HTs and infestors was too hard, so it was nerfed. Wasn't it more about the Protoss army losing its shields to few EMPs? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
When is Blizzard going to understand that Terran relies on slowly building up caster numbers instead of pumping them out 9 at a time like Z and P? Without a substantially powerful buff that makes 2-3 scary to Z and P, it will always be a gimmick. The only good thing about this is a long time needed nerf with Zerg creep. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
A lot of QQ in this thread points to the fact, that low-level-terrans are not used to macro play and fail in scouting. Now they are crying that their favored gimmick 'agressive' build does not work anymore .. imba imba. I never found it entertaining watching a TvZ, when 80% of the games were decided at the 7 minute mark and terrans basically did not need to scout or adapt in any way. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 14 2012 13:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I never found it entertaining watching a TvZ, when 80% of the games were decided at the 7 minute mark 98% of statistics are made up on the spot. | ||
|
SaberNodoka
151 Posts
On August 14 2012 13:14 TheDwf wrote: Wasn't it more about the Protoss army losing its shields to few EMPs? Whats the difference of storms or fungals and the Terran army just melts compared to that? | ||
|
ncsix
1370 Posts
On August 13 2012 14:47 TheDwf wrote: “Not all that bad”? It can literally kill mech on its own... No it can't. Any decent amount of siege tanks stops roach only armies cold in its tracks. Blatant lie or bias / ignorance? Pure bio is not standard in ZvT. And obviously, you are less inclined to build Roaches if your opponent heads for a composition including lots of Marauders... Roach-centered armies are standard against mech or even biomech (things like Marines/Hellions/Thors), so I do play against them. But it does not matter, and the point is not whether or not they're the core of the Zerg composition; you said they were useless in ZvT, which is just plain wrong. They can be played against mech, biomech and even against Marines/Tanks. Not to mention the various uses in early attacks/all-ins. Roach-centered armies are NOT standard against both mech or biomech, Blatant lie or bias / ignorance? I did mention their various uses in early attacks, but their usefulness in the T MU stops there. Of course switching tech is still on the table should T only goes mass thors e.g. and you didn't answer the question of whether they beat you.. of course not.. it is always some other thing like banes or infestors or the ling run-by crippling your economy. Roaches can be played against those combinations if the Z expects to lose all else being equal. Makes roughly as much sense as saying that “it still stands Zergling vs T is pretty useless, it buys you some time to transition into a more cost-efficient army”. We all know Roach is not the ultimate endgame unit, it does not make them “useless” for all that. Sorry, it makes more sense than your fictional quote. We can poll several people's opinion on this. If a Z built roaches and didn't END the game with it as the ultimate 'end-the-game' unit, most Zs will ditch it and tech switch, already to their disadvantage. True, it's more bias and ignorance. could say the same for yourself. 1. Equal army value is not relevant since some compositions are simply more expensive than others. Marine = 50:1 resources per supply while Baneling is 150:1. Roach is 50:1 while Thor is 83:1, etc. Regardless of its superior cost, a Thor-centered mech army will still get rolled by proper Roach focus; a Ling/Bane/Mutalisk army, regardless of its superior cost, can trade evenly or very badly against a cheaper Marines/Tanks army, etc. So, no, neither equal army value nor superior army value are a relevant factor to know how said armies will or even should trade against each other. You have to factor position, terrain, micro, the faculty to recover from losses in the fight (in short, economy and production), etc. 2. What do you mean by “best micro on both sides”? Because best micro theoretically means Automaton 2000 micro with dozens and dozens of action per seconds, Banelings never connecting with Marines offcreep, etc., while in reality, you have to factor human limits, which results in very different outcomes. 1. you're observation is correct but the analysis is mediocre. We use all else being equal in science and math to focus on coming up with solid theories, so while I don't disagree with the factors you mention, army values can help you decide how to theoretically get the best bang for the buck. No one expects actual in game battles be fought with exact army values. Its an exercise of theorycraft , e.g. 50 minerals = 2 lings = 1 marine. zerg wins? now, 500 minerals = 20 lings = 10 marines. who wins? the answer for that is that it goes either way depending on other factors like you mentioned. With dps/range/armour attributes, battle victors change as the exchange ratios tilt, and all of it is economics, equal army values are relevant for crafting compositions and for game designing balance! As I said, everybody can win a certain fight provided they vastly outnumber their opponent - A far superior cost Thor centric army will ALWAYS roll over a roach army of lesser value and vice versa) , but for example, a same cost army of Thor + tank and the equal value in roaches, who wins? how about Thor + tank + scvs + repair cost vs the equal value in roaches? In what situation would the same value army win is the pin in which you can map in other factors, not the other way round. 2. ok, my bad. by law of large numbers would be more accurate. If we statistically plotted all GM games played, we can have a rough idea of the 'best human micro', and crunch the numbers to see the differences of battles won or lost based on equal army, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me with T & P > 50% vs Z. | ||
|
ncsix
1370 Posts
On August 13 2012 14:47 TheDwf wrote: “Not all that bad”? It can literally kill mech on its own... No it can't. Any decent amount of siege tanks stops roach only armies cold in its tracks. Blatant lie or bias / ignorance? Pure bio is not standard in ZvT. And obviously, you are less inclined to build Roaches if your opponent heads for a composition including lots of Marauders... Roach-centered armies are standard against mech or even biomech (things like Marines/Hellions/Thors), so I do play against them. But it does not matter, and the point is not whether or not they're the core of the Zerg composition; you said they were useless in ZvT, which is just plain wrong. They can be played against mech, biomech and even against Marines/Tanks. Not to mention the various uses in early attacks/all-ins. Roach-centered armies are NOT standard against both mech or biomech, Blatant lie or bias / ignorance? I did mention their various uses in early attacks, but their usefulness in the T MU stops there. Of course switching tech is still on the table should T only goes mass thors e.g. and you didn't answer the question of whether they beat you.. of course not.. it is always some other thing like banes or infestors or the ling run-by crippling your economy. Roaches can be played against those combinations if the Z expects to lose all else being equal. Makes roughly as much sense as saying that “it still stands Zergling vs T is pretty useless, it buys you some time to transition into a more cost-efficient army”. We all know Roach is not the ultimate endgame unit, it does not make them “useless” for all that. Sorry, it makes more sense than your fictional quote. We can poll several people's opinion on this. If a Z built roaches and didn't END the game with it as the ultimate 'end-the-game' unit, most Zs will ditch it and tech switch, already to their disadvantage. True, it's more bias and ignorance. could say the same for yourself. 1. Equal army value is not relevant since some compositions are simply more expensive than others. Marine = 50:1 resources per supply while Baneling is 150:1. Roach is 50:1 while Thor is 83:1, etc. Regardless of its superior cost, a Thor-centered mech army will still get rolled by proper Roach focus; a Ling/Bane/Mutalisk army, regardless of its superior cost, can trade evenly or very badly against a cheaper Marines/Tanks army, etc. So, no, neither equal army value nor superior army value are a relevant factor to know how said armies will or even should trade against each other. You have to factor position, terrain, micro, the faculty to recover from losses in the fight (in short, economy and production), etc. 2. What do you mean by “best micro on both sides”? Because best micro theoretically means Automaton 2000 micro with dozens and dozens of action per seconds, Banelings never connecting with Marines offcreep, etc., while in reality, you have to factor human limits, which results in very different outcomes. 1. you're observation is correct but the analysis is mediocre. We use all else being equal in science and math to focus on coming up with solid theories, so while I don't disagree with the factors you mention, army values can help you decide how to theoretically get the best bang for the buck. No one expects actual in game battles be fought with exact army values. Its an exercise of theorycraft , e.g. 50 minerals = 2 lings = 1 marine. zerg wins? now, 500 minerals = 20 lings = 10 marines. who wins? the answer for that is that it goes either way depending on other factors like you mentioned. With dps/range/armour attributes, battle victors change as the exchange ratios tilt, and all of it is economics, equal army values are relevant for crafting compositions and for game designing balance! As I said, everybody can win a certain fight provided they vastly outnumber their opponent - A far superior cost Thor centric army will ALWAYS roll over a roach army of lesser value and vice versa) , but for example, a same cost army of Thor + tank and the equal value in roaches, who wins? how about Thor + tank + scvs + repair cost vs the equal value in roaches? In what situation would the same value army win is the pin in which you can map in other factors, not the other way round. 2. ok, my bad. by law of large numbers would be more accurate. If we statistically plotted all GM games played, we can have a rough idea of the 'best human micro', and crunch the numbers to see the differences of battles won or lost based on equal army, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me with T & P > 50% vs Z. | ||
|
submarine
Germany290 Posts
On August 14 2012 15:06 ncsix wrote: 1. you're observation is correct but the analysis is mediocre. We use all else being equal in science and math to focus on coming up with solid theories, so while I don't disagree with the factors you mention, army values can help you decide how to theoretically get the best bang for the buck. No one expects actual in game battles be fought with exact army values. Its an exercise of theorycraft , e.g. 50 minerals = 2 lings = 1 marine. zerg wins? now, 500 minerals = 20 lings = 10 marines. who wins? the answer for that is that it goes either way depending on other factors like you mentioned. With dps/range/armour attributes, battle victors change as the exchange ratios tilt, and all of it is economics, equal army values are relevant for crafting compositions and for game designing balance! As I said, everybody can win a certain fight provided they vastly outnumber their opponent - A far superior cost Thor centric army will ALWAYS roll over a roach army of lesser value and vice versa) , but for example, a same cost army of Thor + tank and the equal value in roaches, who wins? how about Thor + tank + scvs + repair cost vs the equal value in roaches? In what situation would the same value army win is the pin in which you can map in other factors, not the other way round. 2. ok, my bad. by law of large numbers would be more accurate. If we statistically plotted all GM games played, we can have a rough idea of the 'best human micro', and crunch the numbers to see the differences of battles won or lost based on equal army, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me with T & P > 50% vs Z. What you have to consider for balance is what army a certain race can have at a certain point in time in the game. To build an army terran has to invest far more into infrastucture then zerg. It is very common to see a huge army value lead for zerg after the very early game because of that. It is very common to have an equal income for both z and t for the first 12 mins, and far less unspent resources for terran and still, at the 12 min mark the zerg army has 50% more value. That is how the game is designed. If zerg is left alone to build a army at a certain time in game, they will always have the bigger army at that point in time. Just look at certain roach bane all ins. The army value is stupidly high. Looking as cost effectiveness in the early game with the very different unit building mechanics makes no sense. What matters is what actually can happen in the game. | ||
|
skurj
United States87 Posts
Blizzard is too quick with the balance changes, IMO. Let the meta-game evolve. Just because win rates aren't 50% across all matchups at one point in time doesn't mean the game isn't balanced. | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On August 14 2012 01:15 Shantastic wrote: Conversely: Stim + Splits ZvT midgame is fine. I think the point of debate is Zerg Tier 3, and having to deal with Brood Lords, Infestors, Lings, and Banelings at the same time. Personally, I believe that the metagame just needs to adapt, and Terrans need to find new timings, OR be just as greedy as Zergs and punish super-fast lategame Zerg by going for that dynamic, drop-heavy, high-mobility style of lategame Bio. Back to fundamentals. If he's investing 600 minerals in defense, and another 300 in expanding, you should be investing up to 1k in expanding and teching yourself. Are you really comparing fungal and blings (2 clicks) to the full stim/split procedure and conclude the workload is fairly balanced? Apart from the fact that marines need to be pre-split to avoid fungal. Hell.. I would love if there was an ability that would force my opponent to pre-split his zerglings, banelings and infestor... You say the ZvT midgame is fine. Fine as in no problem, because it's non-existant mostly. Terran has been forced onto 3 bases at least and the push-out happens no longer to kill of the Zerg 3rd, but rather his 4th.It all moves towards the lategame, where the Zerg strengths shine with great tech units, a beastly economy and the ability to remax and change army composition in record time. So far I haven't seen a single timing that works. The thing that looked most like a timing was the Sting vs Darkforce game on CK in the TSL4, where Sting stayed on 2 bases with 3 facts pumping tanks. Yet if Darkforce had not donated all infestors for free, I'm not sure if the push would have worked. That leaves - trololol - the terran attempt to outgreed the zerg. If terran invests 1k resources into expanding, that isn't even 2 OCs. There is no safety, no defense and the 2 OCs don't do shit to increase the production. So 1 OC and 3 rax vs 4 defensive queens and a super fast 3rd... seems like a bad bargain. Also as a zerg, you should be familiar with the ZvZ dynamic, where at a given point, Zergs switch from drones to mass units trying to kill their opponent. Now imagine you don't have an overlord floating right outside their base... AND you cannot switch into mass units as well. That's why massive greed by terrans is so vulnerable, it's cheese. The moment the Zerg smells it (and he will thx to the ferrarilords) he can either kick his economy into overdrive (if you don't believe me, play Terran vs a buddy with Zerg and agree on a NR 12 - the compare the eco in the replay) or hit the kill switch and roll you. Bottom line - the 1k investment does very little to boost the safety, production and economy of Terran compared to the Zergs. | ||
|
ReaperCo
Sweden46 Posts
On August 14 2012 15:58 skurj wrote: Why don't more Terrans use ghosts to counter infestors and ravens to counter Brood Lords? There was a game in the GSL where a terran used a handful of Ravens in late late game to demolish a flock of BLs and march to a win. As a plus, Ravens help you counter creep spread - without nerfing Zerg! Could a better player comment? Blizzard is too quick with the balance changes, IMO. Let the meta-game evolve. Just because win rates aren't 50% across all matchups at one point in time doesn't mean the game isn't balanced. Because terrans suck dick and want to make marines late game and they win 50% of the time using that. If they trained ravens transition they prob would be unbeatable. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Solarist
291 Posts
On August 14 2012 18:36 ReaperCo wrote: Because terrans suck dick and want to make marines late game and they win 50% of the time using that. If they trained ravens transition they prob would be unbeatable. You just went full retard. Never go full retard PS: Hope to god you're being sarcastic | ||
|
Coffeeling
Finland250 Posts
On August 14 2012 18:49 Solarist wrote: You just went full retard. Never go full retard PS: Hope to god you're being sarcastic Of course he is? Gotta use something to deal with the inanity in this thread. I mean, just look at the post he quoted. "Make an army out of nothing but single purpose counters. This is surely very threatening, I mean Ghosts used to be good once upon a time and stuff. SFFFFFFFF, see? This only deals with everything. Man, I am reactive." And to whoever used the GomTvT example a page or two ago, you, sir, are an idiot or intentionally dishonest. The whole tournament format was built on keeping people in. You know, people who qualified when people didn't know how to play and when maps were pretty ridiculously Terran-favoured... | ||
|
tBG_Izzy
Canada7 Posts
Then after the battle makes like 60 more zerglings and kills me.. I mean what is the logic in TvZ, zerg is just crazy.. I just watched (GSL) SC vs Jaedong and last game he won with just that.. Infestors lings banelings and ultras... Its unstoppable.. I think the Snipe nerf ruined the matchup honestly.. I pray that blizzard will nerf zerg somehow. Maybe make ultras cost 300/250-300 Also look at this http://i.minus.com/ijF6GRNzqbJwh.png 44% winrate ... This is retarded guys.. And the only reason that its not being dealt with is that whenever a terran such as myself whines, a good 4 other zergs deny the claim and just rage rage rage till people think its stupid bickering instead of actual fact. Good day. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On August 14 2012 19:45 tBG_Izzy wrote: I think we all should just start meching or something.. It doesn't make sense that I lose an engagement with better positioning, and 20 more supply (175 to 155) with me actually microing my heart out and target firing, where the zerg just a-clicks his army which was banelings zerlings and infestors then just clicks F a bunch of times on my bio units.. Then after the battle makes like 60 more zerglings and kills me.. I mean what is the logic in TvZ, zerg is just crazy.. I just watched (GSL) SC vs Jaedong and last game he won with just that.. Infestors lings banelings and ultras... Its unstoppable.. I think the Snipe nerf ruined the matchup honestly.. I pray that blizzard will nerf zerg somehow. Maybe make ultras cost 300/250-300 Also look at this http://i.minus.com/ijF6GRNzqbJwh.png 44% winrate ... This is retarded guys.. And the only reason that its not being dealt with is that whenever a terran such as myself whines, a good 4 other zergs deny the claim and just rage rage rage till people think its stupid bickering instead of actual fact. Good day. You linked to the wrong picture. http://i.imgur.com/KGYMYh.png That one is more relevant. Terran is ahead. Now think about your argument again. | ||
|
SolarJto
United States260 Posts
| ||
| ||
