|
On June 26 2013 00:44 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:21 Big J wrote:On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 22:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 25 2013 19:58 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 19:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 24 2013 13:02 Plansix wrote:
If I have learned anything from this thread it is that balance is not something to be discussed. It is to be viewed from afar and judged. But discussion on the subject just degrades down into unreasonable madness. It can be discussed, but only by people who are able to not bring their own personal bias in. Too many people use balance discussion to further their own goals (ie win more games) rather than to work at balancing the game. You see it in this thread. Any kind of real balance discussion requires incredibly strict moderation as any claims have to have significant evidence, and guidelines or rules for the discussion need to be laid out. Otherwise you end up with what we have here, or even worse, what happens on the Blizzard forums. Thankfully, we have things like Aligulac and other statistics. These shows us potential balance problems in matchups (that are otherwise denied by people with a personal bias) and provide evidence for discussion. But then you have the people who question or belittle statistics (again because they have a personal bias), and you spend more time discussing the validity of statistics... pretty much every thread that shares statistics related to balance ends up in that realm on this forum. You're probably right in the end... it can't be done on a public forum. Watching and playing Starcraft 2 is a personal experience. It is up to the person playing or watching the game to point out the things that are important to him/her. And balance changes affect this experience. People can (and will) point fingers at other things than the aligulac stats. It is perfectly reasonable. "Statistically balanced" is not - and will never be - the only or ultimate argument. Deal with it. It took the immediate post for someone to argue against math. Good job TL, keep it classy. If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math. Well, I agree with you, but still balance is first and formost winrates. Sure, if the best player in the world happens to play  and keeps on dominating and noother Zerg can reproduce his results we probably just have to consider him to be better. If however every Zerg in Code S has 60% winrate vs Terran for some months, then we probably have a balance problem and shouldn't discard that as "winrates mean nothing, every Zerg these days is simply a v  beast. Look, some Terran somewhere won a tournament against Zergs." Statistically balanced is very simply the by far best indicator for balance we have. Things like "composition XY is unbeatable for race Z at timing T" is not, because 99% of those issues simply can be prevented by playing a certain way. Well I agree with you, balance is dedicated by winrates and so on. Still, this is the "warp prism buff" thread, not just balance discussion thread. Therefore it is the right place to discuss all the other factors too, like is it fun to play? Is it fun to play against? Does it make good games in league X? Will people struggle against it at skill level Y? etc. etc. People should not be bashed for asking these question and posting their feelings about these topics.
Then people should stop posting that X or Y can't be beat--because that's irrelevant to what this thread should actually be about which is unit dynamics.
Balance discussion can only be about winrates.
Game dynamics is not about balance--its about dynamics. How much you win or lose is irrelevant, only what you do in the game is relevant.
|
On June 26 2013 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:44 scypio wrote:On June 26 2013 00:21 Big J wrote:On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 22:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 25 2013 19:58 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 19:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 24 2013 13:02 Plansix wrote:
If I have learned anything from this thread it is that balance is not something to be discussed. It is to be viewed from afar and judged. But discussion on the subject just degrades down into unreasonable madness. It can be discussed, but only by people who are able to not bring their own personal bias in. Too many people use balance discussion to further their own goals (ie win more games) rather than to work at balancing the game. You see it in this thread. Any kind of real balance discussion requires incredibly strict moderation as any claims have to have significant evidence, and guidelines or rules for the discussion need to be laid out. Otherwise you end up with what we have here, or even worse, what happens on the Blizzard forums. Thankfully, we have things like Aligulac and other statistics. These shows us potential balance problems in matchups (that are otherwise denied by people with a personal bias) and provide evidence for discussion. But then you have the people who question or belittle statistics (again because they have a personal bias), and you spend more time discussing the validity of statistics... pretty much every thread that shares statistics related to balance ends up in that realm on this forum. You're probably right in the end... it can't be done on a public forum. Watching and playing Starcraft 2 is a personal experience. It is up to the person playing or watching the game to point out the things that are important to him/her. And balance changes affect this experience. People can (and will) point fingers at other things than the aligulac stats. It is perfectly reasonable. "Statistically balanced" is not - and will never be - the only or ultimate argument. Deal with it. It took the immediate post for someone to argue against math. Good job TL, keep it classy. If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math. Well, I agree with you, but still balance is first and formost winrates. Sure, if the best player in the world happens to play and keeps on dominating and noother Zerg can reproduce his results we probably just have to consider him to be better. If however every Zerg in Code S has 60% winrate vs Terran for some months, then we probably have a balance problem and shouldn't discard that as "winrates mean nothing, every Zerg these days is simply a v beast. Look, some Terran somewhere won a tournament against Zergs." Statistically balanced is very simply the by far best indicator for balance we have. Things like "composition XY is unbeatable for race Z at timing T" is not, because 99% of those issues simply can be prevented by playing a certain way. Well I agree with you, balance is dedicated by winrates and so on. Still, this is the "warp prism buff" thread, not just balance discussion thread. Therefore it is the right place to discuss all the other factors too, like is it fun to play? Is it fun to play against? Does it make good games in league X? Will people struggle against it at skill level Y? etc. etc. People should not be bashed for asking these question and posting their feelings about these topics. Then people should stop posting that X or Y can't be beat--because that's irrelevant to what this thread should actually be about which is unit dynamics. Balance discussion can only be about winrates. Game dynamics is not about balance--its about dynamics. How much you win or lose is irrelevant, only what you do in the game is relevant.
This is a false ideology both in what constitutes meaningful balance discussion and factors that Blizzard uses to determine balance changes.
For instance, the Phoenix range buff back in WoL was a response to the mass-mutalisk play that was popular with Zergs at the time.
ZvP was not terribly out of balance at the time, it was fairly even, but Protoss players everywhere were complaining about their inability to do anything against large swarms of mutalisks and Blizzard obviously agreed with them, we have an researchable range upgrade to show for it.
ZvP win-rates weren't really affected by this balance change at all, but it DID force the MU away from mutas for standard play.
Unit dynamics is a critical part to balance, because if things aren't dynamic and interesting, balance doesn't matter.
|
On June 26 2013 01:30 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 00:44 scypio wrote:On June 26 2013 00:21 Big J wrote:On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 22:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 25 2013 19:58 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 19:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 24 2013 13:02 Plansix wrote:
If I have learned anything from this thread it is that balance is not something to be discussed. It is to be viewed from afar and judged. But discussion on the subject just degrades down into unreasonable madness. It can be discussed, but only by people who are able to not bring their own personal bias in. Too many people use balance discussion to further their own goals (ie win more games) rather than to work at balancing the game. You see it in this thread. Any kind of real balance discussion requires incredibly strict moderation as any claims have to have significant evidence, and guidelines or rules for the discussion need to be laid out. Otherwise you end up with what we have here, or even worse, what happens on the Blizzard forums. Thankfully, we have things like Aligulac and other statistics. These shows us potential balance problems in matchups (that are otherwise denied by people with a personal bias) and provide evidence for discussion. But then you have the people who question or belittle statistics (again because they have a personal bias), and you spend more time discussing the validity of statistics... pretty much every thread that shares statistics related to balance ends up in that realm on this forum. You're probably right in the end... it can't be done on a public forum. Watching and playing Starcraft 2 is a personal experience. It is up to the person playing or watching the game to point out the things that are important to him/her. And balance changes affect this experience. People can (and will) point fingers at other things than the aligulac stats. It is perfectly reasonable. "Statistically balanced" is not - and will never be - the only or ultimate argument. Deal with it. It took the immediate post for someone to argue against math. Good job TL, keep it classy. If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math. Well, I agree with you, but still balance is first and formost winrates. Sure, if the best player in the world happens to play and keeps on dominating and noother Zerg can reproduce his results we probably just have to consider him to be better. If however every Zerg in Code S has 60% winrate vs Terran for some months, then we probably have a balance problem and shouldn't discard that as "winrates mean nothing, every Zerg these days is simply a v beast. Look, some Terran somewhere won a tournament against Zergs." Statistically balanced is very simply the by far best indicator for balance we have. Things like "composition XY is unbeatable for race Z at timing T" is not, because 99% of those issues simply can be prevented by playing a certain way. Well I agree with you, balance is dedicated by winrates and so on. Still, this is the "warp prism buff" thread, not just balance discussion thread. Therefore it is the right place to discuss all the other factors too, like is it fun to play? Is it fun to play against? Does it make good games in league X? Will people struggle against it at skill level Y? etc. etc. People should not be bashed for asking these question and posting their feelings about these topics. Then people should stop posting that X or Y can't be beat--because that's irrelevant to what this thread should actually be about which is unit dynamics. Balance discussion can only be about winrates. Game dynamics is not about balance--its about dynamics. How much you win or lose is irrelevant, only what you do in the game is relevant. This is a false ideology both in what constitutes meaningful balance discussion and factors that Blizzard uses to determine balance changes. For instance, the Phoenix range buff back in WoL was a response to the mass-mutalisk play that was popular with Zergs at the time. ZvP was not terribly out of balance at the time, it was fairly even, but Protoss players everywhere were complaining about their inability to do anything against large swarms of mutalisks and Blizzard obviously agreed with them, we have an researchable range upgrade to show for it. ZvP win-rates weren't really affected by this balance change at all, but it DID force the MU away from mutas for standard play. Unit dynamics is a critical part to balance, because if things aren't dynamic and interesting, balance doesn't matter.
If there was no inbalance before the patch, and no balance changes after the patch--then it wasn't a balance patch by definition.
It was tweaking a game dynamic, attempting to change the way it is played without affecting balance. The same as this prism patch. Yet people keep talking about wins and losses--which is irrelevant.
|
On June 26 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If there was no inbalance before the patch, and no balance changes after the patch--then it wasn't a balance patch by definition.
It was tweaking a game dynamic, attempting to change the way it is played without affecting balance. The same as this prism patch. Yet people keep talking about wins and losses--which is irrelevant.
Losing is part of the game. People are willing to discuss their potential losses related to warp prism play - who are you to tell them that this is wrong?
Even if WP buff does not change the picture losing to something like FF ramp block with units warping in just on the top of your production is a frustrating way to go.
|
On June 26 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:30 Jermstuddog wrote:On June 26 2013 01:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 00:44 scypio wrote:On June 26 2013 00:21 Big J wrote:On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 22:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 25 2013 19:58 scypio wrote:On June 25 2013 19:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 24 2013 13:02 Plansix wrote:
If I have learned anything from this thread it is that balance is not something to be discussed. It is to be viewed from afar and judged. But discussion on the subject just degrades down into unreasonable madness. It can be discussed, but only by people who are able to not bring their own personal bias in. Too many people use balance discussion to further their own goals (ie win more games) rather than to work at balancing the game. You see it in this thread. Any kind of real balance discussion requires incredibly strict moderation as any claims have to have significant evidence, and guidelines or rules for the discussion need to be laid out. Otherwise you end up with what we have here, or even worse, what happens on the Blizzard forums. Thankfully, we have things like Aligulac and other statistics. These shows us potential balance problems in matchups (that are otherwise denied by people with a personal bias) and provide evidence for discussion. But then you have the people who question or belittle statistics (again because they have a personal bias), and you spend more time discussing the validity of statistics... pretty much every thread that shares statistics related to balance ends up in that realm on this forum. You're probably right in the end... it can't be done on a public forum. Watching and playing Starcraft 2 is a personal experience. It is up to the person playing or watching the game to point out the things that are important to him/her. And balance changes affect this experience. People can (and will) point fingers at other things than the aligulac stats. It is perfectly reasonable. "Statistically balanced" is not - and will never be - the only or ultimate argument. Deal with it. It took the immediate post for someone to argue against math. Good job TL, keep it classy. If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math. Well, I agree with you, but still balance is first and formost winrates. Sure, if the best player in the world happens to play and keeps on dominating and noother Zerg can reproduce his results we probably just have to consider him to be better. If however every Zerg in Code S has 60% winrate vs Terran for some months, then we probably have a balance problem and shouldn't discard that as "winrates mean nothing, every Zerg these days is simply a v beast. Look, some Terran somewhere won a tournament against Zergs." Statistically balanced is very simply the by far best indicator for balance we have. Things like "composition XY is unbeatable for race Z at timing T" is not, because 99% of those issues simply can be prevented by playing a certain way. Well I agree with you, balance is dedicated by winrates and so on. Still, this is the "warp prism buff" thread, not just balance discussion thread. Therefore it is the right place to discuss all the other factors too, like is it fun to play? Is it fun to play against? Does it make good games in league X? Will people struggle against it at skill level Y? etc. etc. People should not be bashed for asking these question and posting their feelings about these topics. Then people should stop posting that X or Y can't be beat--because that's irrelevant to what this thread should actually be about which is unit dynamics. Balance discussion can only be about winrates. Game dynamics is not about balance--its about dynamics. How much you win or lose is irrelevant, only what you do in the game is relevant. This is a false ideology both in what constitutes meaningful balance discussion and factors that Blizzard uses to determine balance changes. For instance, the Phoenix range buff back in WoL was a response to the mass-mutalisk play that was popular with Zergs at the time. ZvP was not terribly out of balance at the time, it was fairly even, but Protoss players everywhere were complaining about their inability to do anything against large swarms of mutalisks and Blizzard obviously agreed with them, we have an researchable range upgrade to show for it. ZvP win-rates weren't really affected by this balance change at all, but it DID force the MU away from mutas for standard play. Unit dynamics is a critical part to balance, because if things aren't dynamic and interesting, balance doesn't matter. If there was no inbalance before the patch, and no balance changes after the patch--then it wasn't a balance patch by definition. It was tweaking a game dynamic, attempting to change the way it is played without affecting balance. The same as this prism patch. Yet people keep talking about wins and losses--which is irrelevant.
In League and Dota, these are refereed to as "Quality of Life" changes. The change is made to make the unit/hero more usable through all match ups or play styles. The Phoenix range buff and WP buff are quality of life changes. Mutas still kick the crap out of protoss and WP still die, but they have more utility in their given roles.
Not everything is about balance. We could have a completely balanced game and only use 2 units in each match up, but that game would suck. Sometimes it is just about make the game more interesting.
|
It's threads like this that make me smile!
|
Haven even seen any prism in zvp so for nothinghas changed at all.
|
On June 25 2013 23:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 22:53 Mura19 wrote:
I mean in Proleague when zerg got around 180 pop, Protoss got like 140 or 150 pop max in standard game... that's true, but that doesn't mean anything. Supply is not generally a good measure for the state of a match. And what you bring up is the perfect example, why this is not a good measure. Why?  Zealot cost: 100/0/2 --> 50/0 per supply Sentry cost: 50/100/2 --> 25/50 per supply Stalker cost: 125/50/2 --> 62.5/25 per supply versus Zergling cost: 25/0/0.5 --> 50/0 per supply Roach cost: 75/25/2 --> 37.5/12.5 per supply Queen cost: 150/0/2 --> 75/0 per supply In words: A standard stalker/sentry/tech heavy Protoss has much less supply on the field for the same money than a standard slowteching zerg that relies on zergling/roach/queen. If the Protoss invests into techunits like phoenix, immortal, colossus, void ray this relation gets even more onesided. However that does not mean that a Protoss army is weaker per se. E.g 1stalker beats 1roach, so the 2Protoss supply are better than the 2Zerg supply in that case. However, if a zerg invests into upgrades/Hive or swarm hosts or mutas early in the midgame (like at 8-10mins), the supplies will usually be much closer. Because then the zerg also relies on units with a higher cost/supply ratio. Similar effects are also true in PvT (like those 3base maxed MMM+SCV timings against a 160 supply Protoss with heavytech reliance - Colossi and Templar and Upgrades), TvZ (a 3CC opening usually leads to a 10-20 supply lead around 11-12mins for the Terran due to the cheap marine/mine/hellion combo compared to the expensive baneling/mutalisks) and TvT biomech vs mech (Marine Marauder has a higher cost/supply relation than Tankheavy play).
You right for roach, I think that unit is supply heavy but in the other side roach cost is so cheap and so strong unit for the price compare to Protoss units. I think unit zerg/protoss have almost the same ratio cost/supply except for roach. But when Zerg go hydra + zergling they still ahead in supply and the ratio cost/supply is almost the same for both race.
+
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up.
If you jump straight to 3 base vs 2 base full saturation, you are missing the biggest window of attack in PvZ that has existed for the past 2 years of SC2.
Virtually every 7+ gate, 6 gate robo, or any attack involving ground units abuses the window of time where Protoss fully saturated natural matches the mostly saturated income of the Zerg 3 bases.
It's not as easy as saying "well Zerg has 3 bases, Protoss must be defensive." Heck, MOST PvZ games are determined before the Zerg fully saturates their 3rd. Especially in the current game, Protoss 3rds are very defensible on most maps well before 200 supply.
Stop skipping past the entire game in one sentence.
|
On June 26 2013 02:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up. If you jump straight to 3 base vs 2 base full saturation, you are missing the biggest window of attack in PvZ that has existed for the past 2 years of SC2. Virtually every 7+ gate, 6 gate robo, or any attack involving ground units abuses the window of time where Protoss fully saturated natural matches the mostly saturated income of the Zerg 3 bases. It's not as easy as saying "well Zerg has 3 bases, Protoss must be defensive." Heck, MOST PvZ games are determined before the Zerg fully saturates their 3rd. Especially in the current game, Protoss 3rds are very defensible on most maps well before 200 supply. Stop skipping past the entire game in one sentence.
You say exactly the same that what I say. Protoss do all in like 7+ gate or 6 gate robo to counter the imblance of the match up...
|
On June 26 2013 03:02 Mura19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up. If you jump straight to 3 base vs 2 base full saturation, you are missing the biggest window of attack in PvZ that has existed for the past 2 years of SC2. Virtually every 7+ gate, 6 gate robo, or any attack involving ground units abuses the window of time where Protoss fully saturated natural matches the mostly saturated income of the Zerg 3 bases. It's not as easy as saying "well Zerg has 3 bases, Protoss must be defensive." Heck, MOST PvZ games are determined before the Zerg fully saturates their 3rd. Especially in the current game, Protoss 3rds are very defensible on most maps well before 200 supply. Stop skipping past the entire game in one sentence. You say exactly the same that what I say. Protoss do all in like 7+ gate or 6 gate robo to counter the imblance of the match up...
Zerg double expands => Protoss applies pressure
Zerg gets a delayed 3rd => Protoss gets a fast third
What all in are you talking about?
|
On June 26 2013 03:02 Mura19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up. If you jump straight to 3 base vs 2 base full saturation, you are missing the biggest window of attack in PvZ that has existed for the past 2 years of SC2. Virtually every 7+ gate, 6 gate robo, or any attack involving ground units abuses the window of time where Protoss fully saturated natural matches the mostly saturated income of the Zerg 3 bases. It's not as easy as saying "well Zerg has 3 bases, Protoss must be defensive." Heck, MOST PvZ games are determined before the Zerg fully saturates their 3rd. Especially in the current game, Protoss 3rds are very defensible on most maps well before 200 supply. Stop skipping past the entire game in one sentence. You say exactly the same that what I say. Protoss do all in like 7+ gate or 6 gate robo to counter the imblance of the match up...
i like it when protoss players think this way so i don't have to deal with void ray ht cannon and super fast 3rd that is safe vs everything thx to msc. : ]
|
On June 26 2013 01:50 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If there was no inbalance before the patch, and no balance changes after the patch--then it wasn't a balance patch by definition.
It was tweaking a game dynamic, attempting to change the way it is played without affecting balance. The same as this prism patch. Yet people keep talking about wins and losses--which is irrelevant. Losing is part of the game. People are willing to discuss their potential losses related to warp prism play - who are you to tell them that this is wrong? Even if WP buff does not change the picture losing to something like FF ramp block with units warping in just on the top of your production is a frustrating way to go.
Discussing factual losses for players sub Code A skill is perfectly fine. it has however - imho - no place in a balance discussion thread and makes them extremely unwieldy. Discussing "potential losses" takes it yet another step further, way too far. as 99%++ of ladder players do not lose their games for balancing reasons, they lose b/c they make more mistakes than the other guy.
Just imagine somebody opening a help or discussion thread, uploading a replay and asking for advice. People will point out mistakes and nobody remotely sane will tell them they lost b/c that warp prism moved 18% faster now.
If there was more analysis of win quotas and race representations and tournament victories by race - all in context, and a lot less emphasis on how this personally affects lower league players, the quality of discussion would improve dramatically.
It was sadly telling that the last guy, who criticized the flow of discussion got a rebuttal which started with "ROFL" of all things.
|
On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 23:59 Big J wrote:On June 25 2013 22:53 Mura19 wrote:
I mean in Proleague when zerg got around 180 pop, Protoss got like 140 or 150 pop max in standard game... that's true, but that doesn't mean anything. Supply is not generally a good measure for the state of a match. And what you bring up is the perfect example, why this is not a good measure. Why? Zealot cost: 100/0/2 --> 50/0 per supply Sentry cost: 50/100/2 --> 25/50 per supply Stalker cost: 125/50/2 --> 62.5/25 per supply versus Zergling cost: 25/0/0.5 --> 50/0 per supply Roach cost: 75/25/2 --> 37.5/12.5 per supply Queen cost: 150/0/2 --> 75/0 per supply In words: A standard stalker/sentry/tech heavy Protoss has much less supply on the field for the same money than a standard slowteching zerg that relies on zergling/roach/queen. If the Protoss invests into techunits like phoenix, immortal, colossus, void ray this relation gets even more onesided. However that does not mean that a Protoss army is weaker per se. E.g 1stalker beats 1roach, so the 2Protoss supply are better than the 2Zerg supply in that case. However, if a zerg invests into upgrades/Hive or swarm hosts or mutas early in the midgame (like at 8-10mins), the supplies will usually be much closer. Because then the zerg also relies on units with a higher cost/supply ratio. Similar effects are also true in PvT (like those 3base maxed MMM+SCV timings against a 160 supply Protoss with heavytech reliance - Colossi and Templar and Upgrades), TvZ (a 3CC opening usually leads to a 10-20 supply lead around 11-12mins for the Terran due to the cheap marine/mine/hellion combo compared to the expensive baneling/mutalisks) and TvT biomech vs mech (Marine Marauder has a higher cost/supply relation than Tankheavy play). You right for roach, I think that unit is supply heavy but in the other side roach cost is so cheap and so strong unit for the price compare to Protoss units. I think unit zerg/protoss have almost the same ratio cost/supply except for roach. But when Zerg go hydra + zergling they still ahead in supply and the ratio cost/supply is almost the same for both race. + Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance. = That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up.
it's not just the roach. sure you can go pure gateway against hydras and have similar supply... but if you tech T3 templar/colossi instead, you once again have a better cost/supply than the zerg, so the supplies are simply not compareable.
And yeah, faster 3bases for zerg is an eco advantage. that usually geta dealt with by either using that huge timing window for an attack, or teching some T3 tech (usually colossi) and being ahead in tech. so zerg has to deal with Protoss "imbalance" (as you put it) of 10min T3
|
On June 26 2013 03:02 Mura19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On June 26 2013 02:38 Mura19 wrote:
Also protoss need to deal with the fact that Zerg is probably satured 3 bases and Protoss on 2 base. That result Zerg have +33% more income than Protoss and i'ts pretty hard for Protoss to deal with this imbalance.
=
That result Protoss need to play very defensive until 200/200 supply to counter the imbalance or do some 2 base all in or trade base to hope winning this match up. If you jump straight to 3 base vs 2 base full saturation, you are missing the biggest window of attack in PvZ that has existed for the past 2 years of SC2. Virtually every 7+ gate, 6 gate robo, or any attack involving ground units abuses the window of time where Protoss fully saturated natural matches the mostly saturated income of the Zerg 3 bases. It's not as easy as saying "well Zerg has 3 bases, Protoss must be defensive." Heck, MOST PvZ games are determined before the Zerg fully saturates their 3rd. Especially in the current game, Protoss 3rds are very defensible on most maps well before 200 supply. Stop skipping past the entire game in one sentence. You say exactly the same that what I say. Protoss do all in like 7+ gate or 6 gate robo to counter the imblance of the match up...
Because it works differently doesn't mean its imbalanced...
|
On June 20 2013 06:55 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 06:54 Akusta wrote:
Prisms move faster than vikings. This is just silly. Yeah. Can't wait to have Zealots 24/7 rampaging my base because I can't finish a Prism with a Viking...
You got Medivac Boost, and your shuttle can even heal.... wtf is wrong with you oO
|
I am seriously boggled at why terrans were complaining so much about the buff when it actually affects mainly zerg and has virtually no impact on PvT.
Come on..for non standard PvT noone will use warp prisms for all in anyway, since oracles are generally more devastating. For standard PvT where the toss do the standard 1 Gate FE, you have to get a robo, then 2 gates, then 2 forges after that, and when you have the robo up, you basically need to make 2-3 observers right off to scout and to give map vision so as not to get gibbed by medivac drops. By the time you are done churning observers out like mad, your robo bay is probably done so you have to build colossi so as to be able to take a third at a reasonable time. There is seriously no time to build a warp prism to f around for drops. You need every unit to be able to take a third reasonably safely since good terrans will double drop / hit your third simultaneously forcing you to split your army like mad and taking trades cost ineffectively.
The only time zealot drops can do dmg is if the terran army is out attacking and we dont need a bloody warp prism to 'drop' honestly, a runby from a nearby pylon will probably have the same effect. So yea, just get over it already, no protoss really gives a shit about the warp prism buff in pvt unless its a really massive speed buff where we might be able to do some cute stuff with double immortals in it.
|
I'm on my desktop now and for some reason my launcher is stuck at 0.0%, did anyone else get this issue?
|
I think its funny all the derps who somehow think this doesn't effect PvT. I always open up with warp prism harass vs terrans because its extremely effective. very often I will just win the game right there and the fast shield regen is VERY useful for preserving your units. Costing only minerals equal to two pylons, there is no reason not to get a warp prism in every game.
As a random player I've always thought of protoss as the easymode race and it makes sense that the most clueless players play them.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
