|
I'm not convinced that hydra vs air bio buff is really going to be that effective at fixing the ZvZ match up. Hydras work pretty well already if you leave them at home for defence. It's when you do other stuff with them and they aren't at home that the mutas become a problem again. I'd like to see the infestor somehow reworked to become the answer again. I understand the issue with that is very volatile as it seems to be either massively OP or a bit shit with no happy medium.
Surely the oracle doesn't need to be buffed as it seems like a viable harass unit early, can be the basis of a push vs Z and T, provides mobile detection for stargate openers and has the parasite ability late game. I'd say it just needs to be reskinned to look like a shark that shoots frickin laser beams out of its head. 
Off topic, I would like to see a test map where they revert a few of the units that aren't getting any love now to their early WoL stats and see how they change things with the addition of the new HotS units. Tanks doing 70 dmg and the original ghosts, fast infestors with 8 sec root for way less damage, not sure Khaydarin amulet would be wise but who knows, would certainly change the mass muta situation.
TL;DR
These changes seem a little poxy, just leave it alone for a bit longer and maybe alter the old units not the new ones.
|
On April 23 2013 14:38 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:29 GTPGlitch wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... theeeeeeee fuck are you talking about? protoss is supposed to be cost efficient because they are slow and expensive and their tech is spread out like a jello bomb. If you let a protoss get to 6base and assemble an archonrobogatewaystargatearmyofDOOOOOOM you're fucked sure enough-seems awfully similar to a certain race that would secure bases and turtle to infestor+hive tech with techswitches (not naming any names though). And, as to a ground army that could do it, I would place my bets on ultra/swarmhost/infestor/hydra having the best chance (not necessarily 100%), and if you say that's unrealistic because it's expensive, i'm going to laugh at you. So according to you protoss is playing how zergs did play at the end of WOL and that if you allow them to do that then you deserve to die? You do realize everybody considered what zerg was doing as a problem that warranted changes to the game to prevent right? I want to make sure you understand that considering what you're saying that now that it's protoss it's somehow ok. p.s. To be frank protoss are the cost efficient race as much as zerg are the "swarm" race in that neither of them really are if anything terran fills those roles more in sc2. People need to stop acting like this is BW, it's not.
Except
1) Protoss doesn't have larva, so they need to balance spending between army, economy, and infrastructure a lot more, as well as being unable to make 80 probes behind 800 minerals worth of units
2) Without creep/spine+spore and the aggression-killer that was insta fungal, protoss is mega vulnerable when on 4+ bases with a super immobile army
3) Since the ultimate protoss deathball requires three different tech routes, it takes a lot longer and a lot more money to reach than blord/infestor/corruptor with a switch into ultras afterwards-and all the time and money and supply invested into incomplete deathballs is begging for a timing attack
p.s. To be frank that's wrong because if terran was the cost efficient race it wouldn't be M4 and M4VG in the non-mirrors and lategame units would actually be used. Also, zerg have 3 different ways to make free units, and the other races have a grand total of zero, as well as the vast majority of zerg units being much cheaper and equal or less supply than midgame counterparts from the other races
|
Both changes get a big and fat thumbs down from me ...
- Oracle is fast and powerful enough so that a greater movement speed seems to be a bit too much to keep the units safe. There needs to be RISK involved in everything and a skilled player can use an Oracle to bind more than its own resources worth of enemy units already. More movement speed would make this worse.
- Burrow has always been a great thing to use, but apart from making it free - which I am absolutely against - I dont think players will bother getting it, because there isnt much point in using it due to two reasons: a) the game is designed around massive armies and "nifty ambushes" are not useful and b) the game is designed around massive economy and replacement of units, so burrowing units to keep them safe during battle is a waste of time.
|
On April 23 2013 14:25 infKelsier wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:10 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:59 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:45 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:34 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:26 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:25 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
[quote]
It's immobile and not very good when in small numbers, i.e, death ball formation, certainly there are maps which make this strat hard to deal with, AW comes to mind, but you don't just stupidly mass Queen. Since Skytoss is very supply heavy type of composition there is a weakness that can be exploited there with early and mid game timings. On bigger maps it's very viable to take a lot of bases since any significant push from the Protoss immediately opens him up for ling counter attacks. You won't clean the Protoss army up in one trade, but even if it take 2-3 waves the ultimate result favors the Zerg because the result will be very gas efficient trade for the Zerg.
One other issue here is that in most pro level games Skytoss isn't a prevalent strategy and it's not very often we see the MU unfold in such ways. It is no where near the level of how Inf/GGLord dominated the MU and as we can see the win rates between the races is quite even. I just don't see how this is a problem at the level where the game is being balanced. VRs are really powerful on the ladder, but at the pro level you don't really see them being massed all that often.
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
I think they posted the April win rates recently....might want to check your stat book on that one Who is they? Edit: Here is a snippet from the current WCS, from a sample of 1235 games, 355 PvZ, we see a PvZ 48%, with Z having a marginal lead... The week in starcraft released the winrates here is a link to the doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E#gid=0Thing is you said the winrates were even between the races so i'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Hahaha, look at that underwhelming sample size... wow. Btw, I saw a Protoss beat a Zerg 3-0, 100% winrate for Protoss, it's imba yo... >_> You brought up statistics to support your argument and now you are saying they are meaningless or that you don't have any statistics. Honestly I don't really think it is valuable to discuss strategy with someone who thinks I should "mass queen because they are just 2 supply and a void is 4" Best answer to skytoss is probably hydra, viper with lots of anti air static D. Not just attacking into someone turtling. I just don't agree with making an argument based on statistics without providing relevant statistics and then trying to ridicule someone who does. I was curious at first to see from whom he got his statistics, as you can see I updated my reply after he made his to show my sources. I cannot look at the one he serves all too seriously because it includes ATC and PL, two tournaments where such a statistic can be quite misleading. ATC has teams with a lot of disparity in skill, and certain Protosses of Korean origin ripping apart foreign Zergs. PL is practically dominated by Protoss because Kespa Zergs and Terrans to some degree, are lagging behind compared to their Protoss counterparts; something that is not present in the entirety of the scene. So my statistics which include the highest level of play aren't serious? Are you joking? You even talk about the game being balanced around the highest level of play which is what my stats include. Your statistics are based on the WCS...which literally had players ranging from pros to gold league. I already stated why I find your sample not trustworthy. Even tho ATC and PL provide good games there are a lot of fails too, with a several patchzerg fails, etc. Even though the WCS sample is varied in that regard as well, the overall picture shows that there does not seem to be a strategy vs. Z in the PvZ MU that is dominating Zergs like you claim it is. If you want to see a smaller sample, from a much more recent window with relevant players, http://aligulac.com/periods/83/ , you can still see the statistic remains relatively equal. If it looks like the TvZ MU, then we can talk about overwhelming balance issues in the MU, because as of now it seems like it's a bunch of non pros that are handling it badly. I'm not making any claims about an overpowered strategy (though I doubt I will see mass queen be the answer to skytoss), I'm just commenting on your use/misuse of statistics. you say that your statistics show PvZ is even, however when I provide statistics that contradict your point, you berate me whilst providing no statistics yourself. And saying my statistics are untrustworthy because it includes ATC and proleague (really don't understand that point) Then you bring up your statistics which are from WCS (which has gold league players) and then games from the last 4 days of a sample size smaller than mine (note how you laughed at the sample size I provided yet give one smaller as your evidence) My overall analysis is that you are salty about Zerg domination at the end of WoL (shown by your use of "patch zerg fail" which is disgusting and shows a small mind) and stated statistics to try and support your argument. However when I called you on it, turned out you had jack shit and are hastly trying to recover but you are just digging a deeper hole. Honestly you don't have a leg to stand on anymore. I think Skytoss can be answered, vibe showed great use of hydra, viper and static D but it is a really strong strat.
I explained why your statistic is flawed as well, I also provided another link to another statistic showing the same stat that includes no gold players. Just look at those stats of yours... TvP in favor of Protoss? Seriously? I mean look at that stat, it shows Protoss as the most winning race but includes a ton of games which, like the WCS snippet, has a lot of players that aren't top tier either.
Not to mention how the stats you provide are an assembly of many different tournaments with different formats and player pools. The only substantial stat coming in was from the GSL qualifier (something that is more significant than most of the others) where the win rate is developed across a static and homogeneous format, and lo and behold that it shows a favor for Zerg.
Looking at the WCS qualifier EU, the broadcasted brackets, 6 out of the 8 spots were terran, the other two were Protosses, where Feast had to play only 1 Terran, Naama, to qualifiy, and Welmu who also played Naama and one other Korean Terran playing with, presumably, mad lag (considering that the only Korean to qual. was playing from NA), to qualify.
|
I really like the oracle speed buff. I want to remind everyone (I've seen so many comments about how oracles are fine), how often do you actually see oracles in long extended games? The speed buff really won't help all-ins, because you don't really care about keeping the oracle alive as long as it burns through its energy (if the allin fails, it won't matter that you saved your 0 energy oracle, you're already dead). But it will help with the cost-effectiveness of the unit in the very long term, which will make building them more worthwhile. I think the oracle is a really cool unit, in that I know I'm going to never use them to their full potential, but the top pros will. Currently the oracle isn't strong enough to make it worth the very high investment. A speed buff could be just what is needed.
|
WoL ZvZ was the best matchup because there were so many options
Currently I know without scouting - beyond having an ovie to see at least one gas at natural - what my opponents plan will be and its just boring
Not sure about oracles speed buff cause they don't really feature in PvZ much
And burrow change is nice cause early burrow timings aren't usually worth it as it would be better to have more units and waiting for burrow delays a little too much
|
On April 23 2013 14:33 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:04 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:54 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base... Listen guy, you said in a theoretical argument about unit compositions that zerg ground beats protoss ground. I bring a theoretical example and you start telling me how this doesn't happen at prolevel. Of course it doesn't happen. People who want to make money by winning are not so dumb to build ground units in such a scenario and go for mutalisks and broodlords instead. The closest scenarios to what I'm telling you are games like sos vs soo in Code S, with double robo mass immortal (10+), stormtemplar, colossus or San vs Courios in GSTL. And those were already far from close games. Ya because soo and San played those games perfectly, right? It's as if they totally outplayed their opponents. There are games where players of even, or near even skill, can produce games where it's a rofl stomp. The reason why Stargate opening are favored over ground is because it produces better results over all. If you are suggesting that it's the other way around or that both frontlines are equally ridiculous then why aren't we seeing PvZ with a crushing stat like TvZ? Where in actuality it's nowhere close to that. When you favor the Stargate it implies that Protoss feel like the ground battle is less favorable, something which good Viper play has shown, enabling a roach/hydra comp to crush a robo based comp. I just don't understand how you can only evaluate the balance of the game on just army vs. army basis, when the reality is that it's only a portion of the outcome and is a result of a whole game's worth of decisions prior to that. It's obvious that there are comps in the game that are very hard to beat, but arriving to them is really rare and very hard and nerfing the units that compose them weaken their ability to be viable in the earlier parts of the game which makes the MU into a bigger turtle fest. The reason the VR and Stargate units were focused on was because of how bad it was before, and not only that we have been in the same discussion with VRs in the beginning of WoL too; the eventual nerfs to which completely phased the unit out from the game, except in rare occasions (SKMC).
Did I say anything about balance? All I was saying is that Protoss ground stomps zerg ground in a theoretical scenario, similar to your 50 VR vs 100queen scenario. Stop putting words in my mouth. You started a theoretical arguement about compositions (your queen vs VR scenario) with wrong claims (Zerg ground>Protoss ground) and I replied.
The two games I pointed out were merely examples that it is not impossible to start building up such an ultimate grounddeathball if the Zerg doesn't take to the skies.
|
On April 23 2013 14:48 Rabiator wrote:
Both changes get a big and fat thumbs down from me ...
- Oracle is fast and powerful enough so that a greater movement speed seems to be a bit too much to keep the units safe. There needs to be RISK involved in everything and a skilled player can use an Oracle to bind more than its own resources worth of enemy units already. More movement speed would make this worse.
- Burrow has always been a great thing to use, but apart from making it free - which I am absolutely against - I dont think players will bother getting it, because there isnt much point in using it due to two reasons: a) the game is designed around massive armies and "nifty ambushes" are not useful and b) the game is designed around massive economy and replacement of units, so burrowing units to keep them safe during battle is a waste of time.
Speedivacs do the same thing as Oracles except Speedivacs can be used for other things besides gimmicks as well. The free speed change gave them so much more utility. I think a much more niche unit like the Oracle would benefit from gaining some utility with a speed increase.
|
On April 23 2013 14:48 Rabiator wrote:
Both changes get a big and fat thumbs down from me ...
- Oracle is fast and powerful enough so that a greater movement speed seems to be a bit too much to keep the units safe. There needs to be RISK involved in everything and a skilled player can use an Oracle to bind more than its own resources worth of enemy units already. More movement speed would make this worse.
- Burrow has always been a great thing to use, but apart from making it free - which I am absolutely against - I dont think players will bother getting it, because there isnt much point in using it due to two reasons: a) the game is designed around massive armies and "nifty ambushes" are not useful and b) the game is designed around massive economy and replacement of units, so burrowing units to keep them safe during battle is a waste of time.
So oracles should be risky while terran drops are no longer risky?
Also, if most players aren't going to get burrow because of how useless it will be, then why not give it a slight buff? If I see it in 2% of the allins, then it was worth the buff because otherwise I would never see it at all.
|
If Burrow is another option it will be very hard for terran to defend while getting a quick third up. You are either behind in macro and overdefended or get completely crushed with burrowed roaches.
|
On April 23 2013 14:48 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:38 omnic wrote:On April 23 2013 14:29 GTPGlitch wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... theeeeeeee fuck are you talking about? protoss is supposed to be cost efficient because they are slow and expensive and their tech is spread out like a jello bomb. If you let a protoss get to 6base and assemble an archonrobogatewaystargatearmyofDOOOOOOM you're fucked sure enough-seems awfully similar to a certain race that would secure bases and turtle to infestor+hive tech with techswitches (not naming any names though). And, as to a ground army that could do it, I would place my bets on ultra/swarmhost/infestor/hydra having the best chance (not necessarily 100%), and if you say that's unrealistic because it's expensive, i'm going to laugh at you. So according to you protoss is playing how zergs did play at the end of WOL and that if you allow them to do that then you deserve to die? You do realize everybody considered what zerg was doing as a problem that warranted changes to the game to prevent right? I want to make sure you understand that considering what you're saying that now that it's protoss it's somehow ok. p.s. To be frank protoss are the cost efficient race as much as zerg are the "swarm" race in that neither of them really are if anything terran fills those roles more in sc2. People need to stop acting like this is BW, it's not. Except 1) Protoss doesn't have larva, so they need to balance spending between army, economy, and infrastructure a lot more, as well as being unable to make 80 probes behind 800 minerals worth of units 2) Without creep/spine+spore and the aggression-killer that was insta fungal, protoss is mega vulnerable when on 4+ bases with a super immobile army 3) Since the ultimate protoss deathball requires three different tech routes, it takes a lot longer and a lot more money to reach than blord/infestor/corruptor with a switch into ultras afterwards-and all the time and money and supply invested into incomplete deathballs is begging for a timing attack p.s. To be frank that's wrong because if terran was the cost efficient race it wouldn't be M4 and M4VG in the non-mirrors and lategame units would actually be used. Also, zerg have 3 different ways to make free units, and the other races have a grand total of zero, as well as the vast majority of zerg units being much cheaper and equal or less supply than midgame counterparts from the other races
1: That really has nothing to do with the idea of playing defensively and turtly until you get a big death ball. I wasn't suggesting that protoss literally functions in the exact same way as zerg does but that the game isn't designed for 1 race to have an end game unit composition that is supposed to be the "if you let him get this army you deserve to lose"
2: You're right about the super immobile army bit. Protoss deathballs are basically as slow as terran mech in BW was. If only you had some way to instantly teleport you're entire army to bases if the enemy brings their entire army to pick off an undefended base or the ability to instantly create units in those bases if the zerg sends a minimal force to try to harass/pick off the base with minimal forces. So yeah protoss has it pretty hard with the lack of options to shut down aggression from zergs.
3: You're right the protoss does require 3 different tech routes to get to to said army but so? Broodlord/corruptor/infestor is about gas heavy of a unit composition that you can have and the time it takes to tech to broodlords is longer than anything else in the game. This is a late game discussion so treat it as such.
p.s. You don't think terran has generally the most cost effective armies in the game? Are you kidding? Nevermind about everything I said then because if your view on terran is that skewed than there's no use in trying to talk about balance with you.
|
On April 23 2013 14:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:33 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 14:04 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:54 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base... Listen guy, you said in a theoretical argument about unit compositions that zerg ground beats protoss ground. I bring a theoretical example and you start telling me how this doesn't happen at prolevel. Of course it doesn't happen. People who want to make money by winning are not so dumb to build ground units in such a scenario and go for mutalisks and broodlords instead. The closest scenarios to what I'm telling you are games like sos vs soo in Code S, with double robo mass immortal (10+), stormtemplar, colossus or San vs Courios in GSTL. And those were already far from close games. Ya because soo and San played those games perfectly, right? It's as if they totally outplayed their opponents. There are games where players of even, or near even skill, can produce games where it's a rofl stomp. The reason why Stargate opening are favored over ground is because it produces better results over all. If you are suggesting that it's the other way around or that both frontlines are equally ridiculous then why aren't we seeing PvZ with a crushing stat like TvZ? Where in actuality it's nowhere close to that. When you favor the Stargate it implies that Protoss feel like the ground battle is less favorable, something which good Viper play has shown, enabling a roach/hydra comp to crush a robo based comp. I just don't understand how you can only evaluate the balance of the game on just army vs. army basis, when the reality is that it's only a portion of the outcome and is a result of a whole game's worth of decisions prior to that. It's obvious that there are comps in the game that are very hard to beat, but arriving to them is really rare and very hard and nerfing the units that compose them weaken their ability to be viable in the earlier parts of the game which makes the MU into a bigger turtle fest. The reason the VR and Stargate units were focused on was because of how bad it was before, and not only that we have been in the same discussion with VRs in the beginning of WoL too; the eventual nerfs to which completely phased the unit out from the game, except in rare occasions (SKMC). Did I say anything about balance? All I was saying is that Protoss ground stomps zerg ground in a theoretical scenario, similar to your 50 VR vs 100queen scenario. Stop putting words in my mouth. You started a theoretical arguement about compositions (your queen vs VR scenario) with wrong claims (Zerg ground>Protoss ground) and I replied. The two games I pointed out were merely examples that it is not impossible to start building up such an ultimate grounddeathball if the Zerg doesn't take to the skies.
Wow, so facepalm, so you decide to start a discussion based off your loose interpretation. So what, you were imagining that I'm telling the guy to build 100 queens? I wasn't discussing a theoretical comp. I was discussing the comparison of the units 1:1 and 1:2 ratio, and considering that queens have transfuse that 1:2 is even less in response to a guy who doesn't even mention the unit. The Queen is a very cost efficient addition to a hydra comp to battle air heavy plays since it takes no larva and can be pumped out in greater numbers than VRs can. But good on ya, keep on cherry picking sentences out of context and making an argument out of them.
|
I guess they wanna reward oracle users for good control like cloaked banshee usage but I don't know if buffing the speed is the right way =/
I feel like MC showed that oracles can be used in a core army comp, so I feel like a wait would be nice on oracles until players do more than just use oracles just for harass. I rarely see the reveal/envision ability used either
|
*Unit not used enough* Lets buff it !
Seems to be a common trend in blizzard balance schemes.
|
On April 23 2013 15:05 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:55 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 14:33 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 14:04 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:54 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base... Listen guy, you said in a theoretical argument about unit compositions that zerg ground beats protoss ground. I bring a theoretical example and you start telling me how this doesn't happen at prolevel. Of course it doesn't happen. People who want to make money by winning are not so dumb to build ground units in such a scenario and go for mutalisks and broodlords instead. The closest scenarios to what I'm telling you are games like sos vs soo in Code S, with double robo mass immortal (10+), stormtemplar, colossus or San vs Courios in GSTL. And those were already far from close games. Ya because soo and San played those games perfectly, right? It's as if they totally outplayed their opponents. There are games where players of even, or near even skill, can produce games where it's a rofl stomp. The reason why Stargate opening are favored over ground is because it produces better results over all. If you are suggesting that it's the other way around or that both frontlines are equally ridiculous then why aren't we seeing PvZ with a crushing stat like TvZ? Where in actuality it's nowhere close to that. When you favor the Stargate it implies that Protoss feel like the ground battle is less favorable, something which good Viper play has shown, enabling a roach/hydra comp to crush a robo based comp. I just don't understand how you can only evaluate the balance of the game on just army vs. army basis, when the reality is that it's only a portion of the outcome and is a result of a whole game's worth of decisions prior to that. It's obvious that there are comps in the game that are very hard to beat, but arriving to them is really rare and very hard and nerfing the units that compose them weaken their ability to be viable in the earlier parts of the game which makes the MU into a bigger turtle fest. The reason the VR and Stargate units were focused on was because of how bad it was before, and not only that we have been in the same discussion with VRs in the beginning of WoL too; the eventual nerfs to which completely phased the unit out from the game, except in rare occasions (SKMC). Did I say anything about balance? All I was saying is that Protoss ground stomps zerg ground in a theoretical scenario, similar to your 50 VR vs 100queen scenario. Stop putting words in my mouth. You started a theoretical arguement about compositions (your queen vs VR scenario) with wrong claims (Zerg ground>Protoss ground) and I replied. The two games I pointed out were merely examples that it is not impossible to start building up such an ultimate grounddeathball if the Zerg doesn't take to the skies. Wow, so facepalm, so you decide to start a discussion based off your loose interpretation. So what, you were imagining that I'm telling the guy to build 100 queens? I wasn't discussing a theoretical comp. I was discussing the comparison of the units 1:1 and 1:2 ratio, and considering that queens have transfuse that 1:2 is even less in response to a guy who doesn't even mention the unit. The Queen is a very cost efficient addition to a hydra comp to battle air heavy plays since it takes no larva and can be pumped out in greater numbers than VRs can. But good on ya, keep on cherry picking sentences out of context and making an argument out of them.
Which is a theoretical arguement, because we see this just as little as the mentioned deathball. You can't "just build queens" in such a real game scenario. It just doesn't happen. (using your argument why it is theoretical)
|
wut? buff the oracle? something that u can't really scout for and comes at 5:15?
|
Burrow is the new bunker. 
|
What the hell kind of out of touch sense of balance issues is reflected here? Oh my god T^T
|
Apparently everyone hates the Oracle? And we have a lot of self-hating Protoss? It makes sense if you look at the DKs latest interview, he said: ZvZ Muta too good and Oracle is UP at higher levels. Only thing missing is Mine and Ultra mentions, Mine because they probably don't know how to deal with that yet and the meta is in flux, and Ultralisks I guess aren't priority at the moment?
|
On April 23 2013 15:23 Cloak wrote:
Apparently everyone hates the Oracle? And we have a lot of self-hating Protoss? It makes sense if you look at the DKs latest interview, he said: ZvZ Muta too good and Oracle is UP at higher levels. Only thing missing is Mine and Ultra mentions, Mine because they probably don't know how to deal with that yet and the meta is in flux, and Ultralisks I guess aren't priority at the moment?
Ultras aren't broken either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
