|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
|
T>Z, Z>P, P>T. They way it is meant to be.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 03 2013 02:14 rift wrote:
T>Z, Z>P, P>T. They way it is meant to be.
And the way nobody likes it 
|
We do not make that effort because we do not want to
|
Incredibly low match counts. Korean+WCS is less than 100. International is around 300-400.
To see trends, compare with July.
International:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AFqprJn.png)
Korean:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j0gOkOw.png)
Conclusions regarding Korean (still less than 200 games per MU!!!):
P is doing worse in PvZ and better in PvT. So no trend either MU.
T>Z by the same amount. Trend continues
|
On September 03 2013 02:27 Ghanburighan wrote:Incredibly low match counts. Korean+WCS is less than 100. International is around 300-400. To see trends, compare with July. International: Korean: Conclusions regarding Korean (still less than 200 games per MU!!!): P is doing worse in PvZ and better in PvT. So no trend either MU. T>Z by the same amount. Trend continues
Those aren't low sample sizes at all, going with the assumption wcs and Korea is ABOUT at 100 and assuming its composed of no mirrors.
|
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields.
|
The weird fluctuation in ZvP makes me think the matchup is probably okay, as it doesn't outwardly appear to be favoring one race. I sure don't like Swarm Hosts though!
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields.
Question is how they are winning, not do they.
|
pvt is like only going to be worse for T as time goes by and P learns to handle the midgame (like in wol).
|
Yeah, we are at the point where winrates are irrelevant when the games are so tedious and play the same way each time.
People would probably be happier if there was more racial imbalance in winrates, but more variety in games.
|
I'm surprised that PvT is that one-sided, although it has become easier for me to play against Terrans. I thought I was just figuring out the match-up more 
PvZ and TvZ look to be what I expected though.
EDIT: As always, thanks for posting the data!
|
on the manner of the win :
TvP winrate for T count a large number of scv pull alli. Not sure if we can call a game balance when the meta is to pull all your scv and crossfinger to win
|
Still as ugly as last month.
|
|
|
On September 03 2013 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm surprised that PvT is that one-sided, although it has become easier for me to play against Terrans. I thought I was just figuring out the match-up more PvZ and TvZ look to be what I expected though. EDIT: As always, thanks for posting the data!
It's very likely you that really did figure out the matchup up more It's just that everybody else has, too.
|
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray.
|
On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they.
roach/bane busts obv
|
zvt stats are clearly pre overseer patch, now its gonna be very balanced
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 03 2013 03:31 syriuszonito wrote:
zvt stats are clearly pre overseer patch, now its gonna be very balanced
I understand your sarcasm, but please, overseer patch was good.
|
On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they.
Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't.
|
On September 03 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they. Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't.
A win might be a win, but who cares about balance when the games are all boring, so we should qualify.
|
On September 03 2013 03:39 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they. Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't. A win might be a win, but who cares about balance when the games are all boring, so we should qualify.
Well we shouldn't look to the win rate charts to discuss that. Its not really the venue for that discussion, since balance and quality of viewing are very separate things.
|
On September 03 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they. Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't.
Yes we should. Earlier on, zerg were practically only beating terrans by roach allins. Statistically it was close to 50%, but only the zergs that played macro would lose, and the alliners would win. That's a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
And they include things like NA/EU zergs beating follow terrans. Top korean terrans are slaughtering just about every zerg in macro. Scarlett needs to share dah secrets.
|
On September 03 2013 03:44 Zenbrez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they. Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't. Yes we should. Earlier on, zerg were practically only beating terrans by roach allins. Statistically it was close to 50%, but only the zergs that played macro would lose, and the alliners would win. That's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. And they include things like NA/EU zergs beating follow terrans. Top korean terrans are slaughtering just about every zerg in macro. Scarlett needs to share dah secrets.
Well people will demand balance changes for any reason. I think something should be done when it come to TvZ, since it does seem to be stalling out a bit. But I don't think we need to do this every month.
|
Before I might accidentally respond to the wrong point - do what every month?
|
All hail the Terran yolo 1-1 scv pull and pray to the RTS gods for Justice strat!
As a Terran I do admit that standard bio-mine is slightly too strong vs Zerg in a standard game.
Remove Drilling claws, increase mine production time, decrease damage, increase price, make them slower, make the set-up duration time longer, these are just some things that Blizzard could play around with and test. Also maybe rebuff the infestor? Infested Terrans getting their upgrades back, they start with burrow, cheaper?
I'm open for anything tbh,
I actually don't know about TvP though, it's incredibly boring to play and watch, there are like 5-6 terrans in the world who can actually play the match-up without getting completely "outplayed". And what can you seriously nerf? The mothership-core and the oracle probably are the only ones I can see, though I've always thought that psionic storm is slightly too powerful and HTemplars a bit too cheap.
|
On September 03 2013 03:50 Zenbrez wrote:
Before I might accidentally respond to the wrong point - do what every month?
Cry about what needs to be changed and what is imbalanced. If you claim a win is bad because of the way it was obtained, there is no stopping people from doing it next month with a different complaint. The cycle is endless, because one group always has something to whine about.
|
On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray.
When you have to rely on the first two combat units you can build for your damage all game, this is the result... if Zerg or Protoss make it to end game without a deficit, the game becomes very hard for Terran.
Blizzard needs to fix Mech. Give the Tank an expensive tech lab upgrade that requires an armory where it does a minimum of 45 damage to all non-armored units (including Immortals), remove the Mine and remove the Viper.
|
TvP is even more broken than TvZ lol. But not surprising since Hots TvP is basically Wol TvP, except that Protoss now has all those new units and Terran has nothing new that is viable against P, excpet medivac boost which gets shut down by nexus cannon and early attacks from Terran are dead now too because of that.
|
I don't care how a single win is obtained. Was it hyvaa that beat yoda on akilon by 6 pooling? A 6 pool beats like literally 1 or 2 builds - it's a terrible build to do, but it just happened to work. I don't care about 11/11 either. The problem becomes when the majority of wins come from allins, because it's just the best way to play it out (pvz was not fun in wol for this reason). This isn't a flavor of the month kind of deal either, its been this way since hots release, the dev team is just taking their time to see if players can find something out. People thought syktoss was going to be unbeatable - turns out zerg has the slightly better army between the two (not imbalanced, just slightly better). These mines though are becoming pretty troublesome, imo.
These are just my thoughts on the winrates, if it sounds like I'm whining, I apologize but that's not the intended tone
|
On September 03 2013 02:27 Ghanburighan wrote:
Incredibly low match counts. Korean+WCS is less than 100. International is around 300-400.
How many matches must be included until no one says I DON'T BELIEB CUZ SMALL SAMPLEZ?
300 to 400 coverage is more than enough to see what we need to see. 100 is probably fine too if it's all from the highest level of play where it's unlikely a player botched something so bad as to make it a bad data point.
|
On September 03 2013 03:53 ImperialFist wrote:
All hail the Terran yolo 1-1 scv pull and pray to the RTS gods for Justice strat!
As a Terran I do admit that standard bio-mine is slightly too strong vs Zerg in a standard game.
Remove Drilling claws, increase mine production time, decrease damage, increase price, make them slower, make the set-up duration time longer, these are just some things that Blizzard could play around with and test. Also maybe rebuff the infestor? Infested Terrans getting their upgrades back, they start with burrow, cheaper?
I'm open for anything tbh,
I actually don't know about TvP though, it's incredibly boring to play and watch, there are like 5-6 terrans in the world who can actually play the match-up without getting completely "outplayed". And what can you seriously nerf? The mothership-core and the oracle probably are the only ones I can see, though I've always thought that psionic storm is slightly too powerful and HTemplars a bit too cheap.
Imo the huge problem with trying to buff zerg to help ZvT is that it would likely hurt the ZvP matchup (which is the most balanced now as its been basically forever). Infestors with burrow to start would probably be ok, the other 2 ideas... less so.
As for TvP... maybe a slight damage buff to tanks against shielded units?
|
On September 03 2013 04:02 Aquila- wrote:
TvP is even more broken than TvZ lol. But not surprising since Hots TvP is basically Wol TvP, except that Protoss now has all those new units and Terran has nothing new that is viable against P, excpet medivac boost which gets shut down by nexus cannon and early attacks from Terran are dead now too because of that.
Chargelot archon is now much less viable as protoss due to widow mines and hellbats doing all kinds of hell on the zealots.
I'd like to see more pre-medivac aggression options for Terran, though, photon overcharge takes a lot of stress off of defending before I get my second set of 3 gateways up.
|
No surprises here. Seems like only Blizzard is oblivious to these statistics.
|
i want to see some mech buff i miss mech tvp bw style
|
It almost looks like P>T>Z>P. I hope blizzard can work this out.
|
I'm pretty surprised that with all the complaining of ZvT, PvT seems even worst
|
We need a huge nerf to P.
|
On September 03 2013 05:36 Sent. wrote:
It almost looks like P>T>Z>P. I hope blizzard can work this out.
lol .. sc2 the game of counters ..
|
On September 03 2013 06:56 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 05:36 Sent. wrote:
It almost looks like P>T>Z>P. I hope blizzard can work this out. lol .. sc2 the game of counters ..
Looked the same in BW. Just wish things got to end game stages more. I want to see Viper vs Raven in ZvT and ghost mech vs carriers in TvP.
|
Biggest reason I switched to LoL was because of TvP. Now that the winrates show it's an insanely hard and frustrating matchup even for the pros maybe Blizzard will try to make the matchup better.
|
On September 03 2013 05:48 Papples wrote:
I'm pretty surprised that with all the complaining of ZvT, PvT seems even worst
Yeah, but that is just same shit, different day for Terrans, after Wings of Liberty. Zergs went from the absurdity that was Brood Lord/Infestor to a matchup that is actually challenging at the beginning and...there is no end. The beginning just keeps going and then they die.
Actually, PvT and ZvT are kind of similar in the early and mid-game, now. Except then Protoss have a powerful late-game to transition into and Zergs do not, much like Terran do not in TvP. Fix that problem for Zerg and Terran and I think ZvT and TvP would see a lot of improvement.
|
I knew TvP could not be "balanced" as Kim said.
Inb4 theres no Protoss GSL Champion!
|
|
|
On September 03 2013 04:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Chargelot archon is now much less viable as protoss due to widow mines and hellbats doing all kinds of hell on the zealots.
I'd like to see more pre-medivac aggression options for Terran, though, photon overcharge takes a lot of stress off of defending before I get my second set of 3 gateways up.
OH YES! The dreaded WM+Hellbat TvP composition, stomping them bronze players left and right!
|
On September 03 2013 08:43 shin_toss wrote:
pretty balanced imo
not very qualitfied and deliberate answer ...
the tendency is there, i mean around 57% is not slightly in favor of Terran in TvZ and for Protoss in PvT. As terran player it feels very frustrating vs Protoss, so i can feel with Zergs, which are at kinda same situation vs Terran (even if i play not very well against zerg ^^ as terran)
I hope they (Blizzard) will find a way to solve this problems. I mean if i lose, its ok, but often if i lose a TvP i think there was kinda imbalance, because generally the Protoss defend his 2/3 bases and then push out around 14min, often kill my main army and win the game. There is so much more pressure on us terrans in this matchup during the first 15min, and this is in my opinion not balanced. If i could always play like a Protoss can, macro up, defend with MC early aggression with ease, also i have the option to make a lot of diffrent all ins, which put some more pressure on the Terrans early game.
On my level of play i have 50% winrate vs Protoss, but it feels that i lose against worse players and win against the ones which have some lacks in macro skill.
Maybe mech can balance this MU, then the Protoss has to scout more to be sure whats coming, now 98% of the Terrans play bio with 10/11 min push
|
On September 03 2013 02:14 rift wrote:
T>Z, Z>P, P>T. They way it is meant to be.
Rejoice people. We made it.
|
On September 03 2013 04:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:02 Aquila- wrote:
TvP is even more broken than TvZ lol. But not surprising since Hots TvP is basically Wol TvP, except that Protoss now has all those new units and Terran has nothing new that is viable against P, excpet medivac boost which gets shut down by nexus cannon and early attacks from Terran are dead now too because of that. Chargelot archon is now much less viable as protoss due to widow mines and hellbats doing all kinds of hell on the zealots. I'd like to see more pre-medivac aggression options for Terran, though, photon overcharge takes a lot of stress off of defending before I get my second set of 3 gateways up.
Hellbat is very hard to transition to. I totally agree with Aquila , this matchup is ridiculously imbalanced atm mainly because of MSC that shut down about everything of early/mid game aggression making the matchup going straight into late game with protoss macroing and making directly his high cost efficient units with ridiculous upgrade advantage unpunished.
The promise of blizzard was that terran will get something to deal with the a+click chargelot archon ball as the hellbat but they nerfed it to the ground for obvious reason. Now we just have to pray that blizzard find a solution to make hellbat viable again in TvP without breaking the other MU again.
The only terran that crushes protoss right now is bomber and he only SCV pull but i guess this will be easily countered by slight adjustments in couple of days.
to balance TvP maybe something like get raven and BC immune to feedback could provide terran a viable air transition with high tier units. because right now you can't use any of those because of feedback. just an upgrade that could be research at SP.
|
|
|
When you look at WCS. The only terrans that break protoss are bomber and Taeja and when you look at those two they play just perfectly the matchup. when you look at Taeja vs Rain it was obvious who was the better player here. But it took a 30 minute game of contain to actually break Rain when Taeja had a clear lead the entire game.
|
On September 03 2013 05:48 Papples wrote:
I'm pretty surprised that with all the complaining of ZvT, PvT seems even worst
As a terran It's not surprising to me. However, you just give up complaining when you only get counter-arguments and stagnant match-up for 3 years.
|
I wonder what the TvP winrates would look like if you took away scv pulls, probably even worse. It's not just that protoss is clearly favoured in this matchup but what annoys me the most is that the engagements are so much harder for terran. Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game.
|
every month the terran tears are so delicious
|
On September 03 2013 18:01 spalding wrote:
I wonder what the TvP winrates would look like if you took away scv pulls, probably even worse. It's not just that protoss is clearly favoured in this matchup but what annoys me the most is that the engagements are so much harder for terran. Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game.
Care to share any off race replays with us?
|
On September 03 2013 18:14 Erik.TheRed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 18:01 spalding wrote:
I wonder what the TvP winrates would look like if you took away scv pulls, probably even worse. It's not just that protoss is clearly favoured in this matchup but what annoys me the most is that the engagements are so much harder for terran. Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game. Care to share any off race replays with us?
3000+ games with random
|
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here.
|
Well done blizzard, like always
|
On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here.
I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive.
TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too.
|
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is.
|
On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is.
Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! 
On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too.
TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too.
These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit!
|
On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit!
Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance.
|
On September 03 2013 19:42 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit! Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance.
there are several things blizz can do to fix this. there are small fixes that just balance winrates or big fixes that fix balance AND bring back fun with more viable comps and harrass for all races. small fixes could be +3 +3 on IP + planetary nexus nerfed. both would mean TvP lategame stays a mess with P being favored but T can do more early and midgame damage + TvZ would be more balanced but still be MMMM vs ling bane muta every game while TvP MMMVG every game.
big fixes would include buffs to ZvT hydras, SHs, BLs, vipers, infestors, ovidrop, nydus, snipe, BC/raven transition, tanks, thors, tempest redesign, oracles etc.
even bigger changes would be designchanges and new units like warpgate redesign, introducing lurker etc. which wont come until LotV.
|
There you see the state of the game. Protoss!
|
Buffing raven BC is really the way to go in TvP imo as they are both underused in all 3 MU and could be a fearsome army late game for Protoss.
|
Solution:
Remove Warpgate Upgrade or double the Cooldown. --> Protoss can still use warpgate to resupplly but not as fast.
Protoss still can produce units from gateways and sit back (as they mostly dow now anyway f they not all in).
Weakens immortal all in, gets rid of fourgate/threegate aggression. Less all in more macro = more nice games.
T has to play aggressive and spread out the protoss, but with nexus cannon/recall/warpin/cannons, its not worth sending2-3 Vital Medevacs with even more vital units into uncertain figths. Protoss can sit on 2 base double forge colossus, if your drop fails, good luck holding back the 3 colossus past 1-1 pushout with 4 vikings at your nat.
|
On September 03 2013 18:06 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
every month the terran tears are so delicious
Why aren't posts like this banned or warned? I see these kind of posts quite a bit and they add nothing to the conversation except for flame baiting.
|
On September 03 2013 20:31 klup wrote:
Buffing raven BC is really the way to go in TvP imo as they are both underused in all 3 MU and could be a fearsome army late game for Protoss.
I can't really see how skyterran could become viable in TvP (against feedback, tempests and voidrays) without making it utterly imba in TvZ. As a final transition, skyterran makes more sense when you go mech first, so fixing mech would be the very first step. After that .... 
|
In WoL with mech TvP I went skyterran as lategame transition. In HotS? No, or better said, hell no. If the toss has some templar then sky toss is simply so much better than skyterran. For that to happen the tempests attack vs massive needs to be heavily nerfed first. But right now battlecruisers are way to hardcountered by tempests. The better voids you could deal with, but as soon as PDDs are gone your battlecruisers will melt away.
And tbh I don't think there is much reason not to nerf tempests attack vs massive. Or better (wishfull thinking) redesign the entire units. It is boring to watch a group of tempests shell everything from extreme range. At the very least also its range could be nerfed. Sure let it outrange broods/colossi. But it doesn't need to kill them from the other side of the map. (Thank god they don't have beta range anymore).
|
Late game Terran tech needs a boost to make TvP more interesting.
I always thought it would be cool if Battle cruisers were buffed by giving them a hyperdrive tech that let them warp to any place on the map (long cool down). It would be like Battlestar Galactica. The Adjutant would say "jump" like the Hybrids in BSG when you activate the ability.
|
making raven and BC immune to Feedback could be a start
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I wonder if they could toy with making the Hive morphing time a bit less.
|
On September 03 2013 03:16 SSVnormandy wrote:
on the manner of the win :
TvP winrate for T count a large number of scv pull alli. Not sure if we can call a game balance when the meta is to pull all your scv and crossfinger to win
ppl did that for years, pretending zvp wasnt utterly disgusting cuz ppl could immortal allin
|
Haha the new units are causing the supposed "problems."
TvZ Problem = Widow Mines
ZvP Problem = Super Healing Undying Mutalisks
PvT Problem = MSC
|
On September 03 2013 21:57 Salient wrote:
Haha the new units are causing the supposed "problems."
TvZ Problem = Widow Mines
ZvP Problem = Super Healing Undying Mutalisks
PvT Problem = MSC
Buff Thor's splash missiles, mines can no longer damage air?
|
On September 03 2013 03:16 SSVnormandy wrote:
on the manner of the win :
TvP winrate for T count a large number of scv pull alli. Not sure if we can call a game balance when the meta is to pull all your scv and crossfinger to win
Large amount? You mean Bomber's WCS finals games.
|
On September 03 2013 19:42 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit! Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance.
And by making 3/3 harder to obtain you're essentially buffing double forge builds in PvT. 3/3 timings from Toss become even stronger.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 03 2013 21:57 Salient wrote:
Haha the new units are causing the supposed "problems."
TvZ Problem = Widow Mines
ZvP Problem = Super Healing Undying Mutalisks
PvT Problem = MSC
Solution: leave infestor's fungal in HotS state, revert all the other changes to WoL, whine from everyone ensues!
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 03 2013 22:40 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:42 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit! Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance. And by making 3/3 harder to obtain you're essentially buffing double forge builds in PvT. 3/3 timings from Toss become even stronger.
I guess makes sense to make 3-3 harder to get for toss too :3
|
On September 03 2013 22:40 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 19:42 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit! Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance. And by making 3/3 harder to obtain you're essentially buffing double forge builds in PvT. 3/3 timings from Toss become even stronger.
I was talking about in the other direction, to reduce the requirement of Z upgrades, since +3/+3 for both T and P don't require an extra building, but Z requires 2(that aren't even done at same time). I don't really think it will change that much in ZvP, since hive tech is a lot more desireble in ZvP anyway.
|
On September 03 2013 22:48 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 22:40 rd wrote:On September 03 2013 19:42 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 19:33 TeeTS wrote:On September 03 2013 19:14 Satiinifi wrote:
I wonder what made them impliment MSC as it is to the game, any decent player who would have tested to play against it or play with it 10 games should have been able to tell easily, that its a totally rigged unit that does not belong to this game as it is. Isn´t David Kim a GM player with all 3 races. I´m sure he knows best! On September 03 2013 19:09 Zarahtra wrote:On September 03 2013 18:56 TeeTS wrote:
Well I said it the day hellbat nerf was announced, that PvT will swing massively into favor of protoss and here we are. TvZ is a mess too. The only matchup that seems somehow working right now is PvZ. We have a lategame where both sides have options to win, we have several routes for both sides to get there and stable winratios around 50%.
The other 2 matchups are a huge clusterfuck. In TvZ both sides are forced into one and only one composition for basically the whole game and zerg suffers just way too much from widow mines and medivac speed. Ofc if you would take away only one of those puzzle pieces from terran, we would have a huge swing and terran would´ve a lot of trouble winning at all against Zerg.
I don´t see those issues solved by David Kim. Until he (and his team) is replaced, I don´t see a chance for a good solution. I would be more than happy if he could surprise me here. I'm a T so obviously I'm going to be biased, but personally I'm byfar more concerned for TvP rather than ZvT. I think there are plenty of buffs that Blizzard can implement for TvZ since it's such a specific problem imo of terran being able to pressure to hard and preventing Z from getting hive. TvP is just a huge clusterfuck of mothership core(which is pretty vital in PvZ) allowing to much greed while T can't be greedy and lategame favours P. I just don't really see a fix to that issue except changes that effect PvZ hard too. TvZ is as problematic as TvP. If you take away MSC then P dies hard to drop harassment at all stages of the game. In TvZ you can´t really buff zerg units, because you will fuck up PvZ with it and if you take away anything from terran, then they´ll get rolled here too. These problems can´t be solved by a single change. We need a somewhat gamechanging package of changes to all 3 races to solve these issues. You won´t get a balanced game by changing a single unit! Well atleast on the pro level I think changing +3/+3 upgrade requirement will be enough to shift the balance quite a bit. You can see the meta is basically T hits 2/2 and then just suffocates the zerg until 3/3 is done, then zerg is screwed. That isn't to say I wouldn't love a bigger change for TvZ since I miss marine tank a lot, but I don't think a big change is needed to shift the balance. And by making 3/3 harder to obtain you're essentially buffing double forge builds in PvT. 3/3 timings from Toss become even stronger. I was talking about in the other direction, to reduce the requirement of Z upgrades, since +3/+3 for both T and P don't require an extra building, but Z requires 2(that aren't even done at same time). I don't really think it will change that much in ZvP, since hive tech is a lot more desireble in ZvP anyway.
3/3 is to hard to get for zerg currently because of hive. It is mostly a time requirement, rather than a gas thing. It just takes to long to get down the infestation pit, get some sort of benifit from the pit and then get hive and 3/3. The difference between zerg and the other races is that they need to build a building that allows them to produce units. The protoss and terran just build a building that allows them to upgrade existing units.
|
Matchups look like broodwar except protoss should be a little bit weaker vs terran.
|
Not exactly sure why people are deriving that Z > P from these win rate stats....
Is it just because its catchy to assess the current state of balance in hots as T > Z > P > T? To be honest, a 51.4% win ratio in zerg's favour seems like a very acceptable "imbalance" if one can call it that...
Quite surprised to see how badly imbalanced T v P is, but then if I really think about it, I can't recall last time I saw a terran take a game from a protoss at pro level in the late game. Z v T, no surprise at all there, in fact I expected it to be even more skewed in terran's favour but I guess zergs have figured out some pretty sharp all ins eh?
|
New Winrates GSTL
TvP: 100%
TvZ: 100%
PvZ: no data
Oh my god, that's scary.
Metagame will evolve by itself or should Blizzard nerf Terran?
|
i feel finally fix mech ( read: tank ) against protoss would resolve the issues in that matchup completely and would also make it possible to have more than 1 playstyle for 5 years.
|
On September 03 2013 23:19 sacade wrote:New Winrates GSTL TvP: 100% TvZ: 100% PvZ: no data Oh my god, that's scary. Metagame will evolve by itself or should Blizzard nerf Terran?
All of those are Innovation wins, correct? I don't think they can nerf him directly without resorting to crime.
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 00:11 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 18:01 spalding wrote:
Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game. MMMVG is so ridiculously easy to control. You a-move your MMMVG, look for the biggest clump of Protoss units, and then EMP it. Get most of your army Stormed..? No problem, split out of the Storm whilst EMPing everything in sight. As for the Protoss, eat EMPs on your Templar once..? Sorry, good game. Works both ways, Templar vs. Ghost micro is the be-all-and-end-all of PvT late-game.
just that colossi have like onemilion range and you can't even get to the templars to emp if the toss has an observer AND you can't a move vikings cause they get stormed together with your bio+ you presplitt usually just to make storm less effective
|
Sated you should have felt while writing it that it's not as easy as what you were parodying. And you left out Viking micro (the previous left out colossus...), you need to position vikings separately and focus fire. Also, while mentioning splits, you forgot about stutter-step. All-in all, as mindless pissing contests go, a very poor effort. At least add an scv pull scenario : "scan to see templar archives, pull scv's and a-move with stim before storm is out. GG".
|
Not usually one to theorycraft in these threads but heres some ideas;
- siege tanks in siege mode immune to viper pull due to being clamped into the ground
- new upgrade for siege tanks: EMP rounds - deals extra damage to shields & lowers a caster unit's energy
- planetary nexus attack speed decreased, but overall dps unchanged (better against medivacs, roaches, marauders, worse against marines, lings)
- widow mine attack has ammo that must be replenished by building new missiles for 10 gas or minerals a pop
|
|
|
David Kim: GAME IS BALANCED
|
On September 04 2013 00:11 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 18:01 spalding wrote:
Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game. MMMVG is so ridiculously easy to control. You t-a-move your MMMVG, look for the biggest clump of Protoss units, and then EMP it. Get most of your army Stormed..? No problem, split out of the Storm whilst EMPing everything in sight. As for the Protoss, eat EMPs on your Templar once..? Sorry, good game. Works both ways, Templar vs. Ghost micro is the be-all-and-end-all of PvT late-game.
Bro, you just went full retard...
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 00:21 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 00:13 ntssauce wrote:On September 04 2013 00:11 Sated wrote:On September 03 2013 18:01 spalding wrote:
Zealot+archon+hts is so ridiculously easy to control. You a move your zealots/archons, look for the biggest clump of terran units and just storm it. Get most of your army EMP'ed? np, use a defensive storm and retreat. Eat 2 big storms? Sorry, good game. MMMVG is so ridiculously easy to control. You a-move your MMMVG, look for the biggest clump of Protoss units, and then EMP it. Get most of your army Stormed..? No problem, split out of the Storm whilst EMPing everything in sight. As for the Protoss, eat EMPs on your Templar once..? Sorry, good game. Works both ways, Templar vs. Ghost micro is the be-all-and-end-all of PvT late-game. just that colossi have like onemilion range and you can't even get to the templars to emp if the toss has an observer AND you can't a move vikings cause they get stormed together with your bio+ you presplitt usually just to make storm less effective Vikings have pretty good range vs. Colossi, and the Protoss has to position Stalkers to focus fire the Vikings. Protoss should pre-split vs. EMP as well, especially their Templar. Nothing here makes me feel that either side is harder. It all comes down to those Templar vs. those Ghosts. If the Terran doesn't hit their EMPs and the Protoss hits their Storms, Protoss wins. If the Terran hits their EMPs (or Snipes), then the Terran usually wins. Or one army has to retreat. Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 00:17 Ghanburighan wrote:
Sated you should have felt while writing it that it's not as easy as what you were parodying. And you left out Viking micro (the previous left out colossus...), you need to position vikings separately and focus fire. Also, while mentioning splits, you forgot about stutter-step. All-in all, as mindless pissing contests go, a very poor effort. At least add an scv pull scenario : "scan to see templar archives, pull scv's and a-move with stim before storm is out. GG". If I left out Viking micro, the previous left out Blink Stalker and Colossus micro. Neither side has it easier. Late-game PvT is very bloody difficult, and it's usually over in a second because one person makes that critical mistake that leads to everything they have melting (standing in Storms, Templar getting EMP'd, engaging in a bad choke, not pre-splitting effectively enough, etc.) There is definitely a period where Terran won't have quite enough Ghosts/Vikings (depending on whether Protoss opened Templar/Colossi), and there is also an earlier period where Protoss won't have their second form of AoE ready to help deflect an SCV all-in, but after those two windows it is a very even match-up.
it seems you are the only one to think protoss is as hard as terran micro in those engagements. no wonder, you are protoss yourself.
Colossus micro is almost non existent at any level, it's really rare in those big engagements.
+You have no clue, protoss armys are usually better to be clumped against terran, because of the huge damage output. your zealots spread alost auto with charge and the rest should stay clumped, to maximize damage as said, fighting in small clumps favours the terran , as we all should know.
+ protoss almost don't build stalkers in lategame because they are so cost inefficient, i don't recall seeing stalkers in a lategame PvT in month, except mabye from MC.
And last of all i feel this "I have to micro this and that unit" bla bla that we are doing right now is pretty stupid , but so is denying that Terran has a harder time in latgame engagements.
AND also what the fuck is this argument: "Vikings have a pretty good range too"
I said: ghosts can't reach your templawrs because of insange collosus range and you answer with vikings? vikings aren't the problem here, because you want to emp the temps before you engage.
|
|
|
As a spectator, what I can see is that for most level TvP is easier for Protoss but at the highest level Terran are good enough to:
scan + snipe observer + scan + carpet EMP with cloak ghost + Stim + A move and profit
So we have as best player
last Proleague: Flash
last Gstl: Ryung
WCS Korea: Maru
WCS World: Bomber
First WCS point: InnoVation
That's a lot of Terran at the top
I still think that the game is balance. I just want to see more Hellbat Marauder from Terran which I think is easier to control (Last time I saw ForGG, he used it so I hope he will do it again today) and for top Protoss player I like when they use Warprism to protect their HT and when they add few Tempest to kill incoming ghost or force a bad engagement from Terran.
I will stop my theorycraft here
|
Just like BW then haha. T>Z>P>T. Only this time Protoss gets the best end of the stick in terms of overall winrates. I feel like very minor nerfs to both the widow mine and the mothership core are in order.
|
On September 04 2013 01:03 kochanfe wrote:
Just like BW then haha. T>Z>P>T. Only this time Protoss gets the best end of the stick in terms of overall winrates. I feel like very minor nerfs to both the widow mine and the mothership core are in order.
But going back through April, Protoss isn't always #1 and when it is, it's not always ahead by a lot.
While I'd like to see MSC/mine nerfs, they're not 100% necessary for balance. We shouldn't jump the gun on things concerning balance, that's how we got range 5 queens.
|
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal?
|
On September 04 2013 02:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal?
Given that Overseer speed buff aids the 45% party in ZvT, and has no effect on PvT, what would be the complaint?
|
On September 04 2013 02:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 02:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal? Given that Overseer speed buff aids the 45% party in ZvT, and has no effect on PvT, what would be the complaint?
1) That the overseer buff was called "nice, but useless" before the patch was even release and has proven to be about as effective as predicted.
2) That the 42% win rate for Terran in TvP (arguably the larger issue here) has absolutely nothing going for it.
3) That the mantra is WRONG WRONG WRONG and people are still defending it.
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 02:21 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 02:10 Jermstuddog wrote:On September 04 2013 02:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 04 2013 02:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal? Given that Overseer speed buff aids the 45% party in ZvT, and has no effect on PvT, what would be the complaint? 1) That the overseer buff was called "nice, but useless" before the patch was even release and has proven to be about as effective as predicted. 2) That the 42% win rate for Terran in TvP (arguably the larger issue here) has absolutely nothing going for it. 3) That the mantra is WRONG WRONG WRONG and people are still defending it. Look at last month in Korea, Terran is favoured in TvP (very, very slightly - it's pretty much even). Look at the month before, it's exactly the same. Then look at the overall stats, and see that they're also much closer to even for TvP in previous months. If you make balance changes every month and never let balance settle, you're never really going to know whether or not the balance changes are helping. There needs to be sustained imbalance before people start flipping out and making changes everywhere, in my opinion. Only TvZ is close to that stage right now and Blizzard are already looking v. closely at TvZ.
A much better answer, I can see that point. So if the trend continues of low 40s win% for Terran, there might be a patch aimed at that. Makes sense.
|
On September 04 2013 02:28 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 02:21 Sated wrote:On September 04 2013 02:10 Jermstuddog wrote:On September 04 2013 02:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 04 2013 02:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal? Given that Overseer speed buff aids the 45% party in ZvT, and has no effect on PvT, what would be the complaint? 1) That the overseer buff was called "nice, but useless" before the patch was even release and has proven to be about as effective as predicted. 2) That the 42% win rate for Terran in TvP (arguably the larger issue here) has absolutely nothing going for it. 3) That the mantra is WRONG WRONG WRONG and people are still defending it. Look at last month in Korea, Terran is favoured in TvP (very, very slightly - it's pretty much even). Look at the month before, it's exactly the same. Then look at the overall stats, and see that they're also much closer to even for TvP in previous months. If you make balance changes every month and never let balance settle, you're never really going to know whether or not the balance changes are helping. There needs to be sustained imbalance before people start flipping out and making changes everywhere, in my opinion. Only TvZ is close to that stage right now and Blizzard are already looking v. closely at TvZ. A much better answer, I can see that point. So if the trend continues of low 40s win% for Terran, there might be a patch aimed at that. Makes sense.
You also don't want to respond on a month by month basis on balance. It just causes people to complain more and devalues the wins obtained in the previous month. They also don't want to make the next "Queen Buff" and totally break the game again(I know the queen buff didnt' break the game, but we all know the type of buff we are talking about). If Blizzard wants to shake stuff up, they should do it after the finals at Blizzcon and then do a huge "quality of life" patch to pull some units into the meta game.
|
On September 04 2013 02:28 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 02:21 Sated wrote:On September 04 2013 02:10 Jermstuddog wrote:On September 04 2013 02:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 04 2013 02:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
So... looking at these numbers, the game is in a terrible state. Why is everyone constantly chanting the mantra of "best balance the game has seen in a long time", "don't disrupt the win rates", and other equivalent BS?
Blizzard has stated frequently throughout the history of SC2 that anything outside of 45/55 win rates is considered "imbalanced" by their own definition. 2/3 of their MU are imbalanced and we sit by with shit like the overseer speed buff because we don't want to disrupt the balance of the game?
I don't get it. Why isn't this a bigger deal? Given that Overseer speed buff aids the 45% party in ZvT, and has no effect on PvT, what would be the complaint? 1) That the overseer buff was called "nice, but useless" before the patch was even release and has proven to be about as effective as predicted. 2) That the 42% win rate for Terran in TvP (arguably the larger issue here) has absolutely nothing going for it. 3) That the mantra is WRONG WRONG WRONG and people are still defending it. Look at last month in Korea, Terran is favoured in TvP (very, very slightly - it's pretty much even). Look at the month before, it's exactly the same. Then look at the overall stats, and see that they're also much closer to even for TvP in previous months. If you make balance changes every month and never let balance settle, you're never really going to know whether or not the balance changes are helping. There needs to be sustained imbalance before people start flipping out and making changes everywhere, in my opinion. Only TvZ is close to that stage right now and Blizzard are already looking v. closely at TvZ. A much better answer, I can see that point. So if the trend continues of low 40s win% for Terran, there might be a patch aimed at that. Makes sense.
I agree with this. For precedent, they did nerf the Infestor after a long period of supremacy in ZvP. And then some more in Heart of the Swarm.
|
I think blizzard is scared to change tvp too much because it's the weird case of a match up that is imbalanced for the not quite best players in the world in favor of protoss but imbalanced the other way for the very best Terran's in the world at the match up -- innovation, apparently (and once again) Taeja and maybe FLash. Taeja and Innovation especially make the match up seem highly in favor of Terran, because of impeccable micro (in Innovation's case) and more or less perfect late game end army control (in both Taeja's and Innovation's cases).
|
Everyone here debating 45/55 winrates over 100 games is a complete moron. None of you know even the tiniest amount about statistics if you believe that these numbers say anything about the state of balance other than that it's pretty good.
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote:
Tanks need a buff!
For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP.
Against zerg really Terrans do not need buffs, Zerg is struggling enough vs the cost effectiveness of Widow Mines and 4M, your just being silly.
|
On September 03 2013 21:14 Buchan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 18:06 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
every month the terran tears are so delicious Why aren't posts like this banned or warned? I see these kind of posts quite a bit and they add nothing to the conversation except for flame baiting.
If you want a post warned/banned, hit the "Report" button, and a moderator will look at it later.
The moderators can't see EVERYTHING!
|
On September 04 2013 03:25 Lysanias wrote:For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP.
Remove harden shield, make immortals cheaper, buff tank. Now we all have crazy broken shit and I can stop building so many stalkers.
|
On September 04 2013 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:25 Lysanias wrote:On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote:
Tanks need a buff! For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP. Remove harden shield, make immortals cheaper, buff tank. Now we all have crazy broken shit and I can stop building so many stalkers.
Buffing tanks is just going to mess up any roach play a zerg would ever want to try instead of going the usual ling/bane.
You are basicly going to narrow down what Zerg can do to Terran even more, wich is in fact the problem that is TvZ already.
|
On September 04 2013 03:29 Lysanias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:27 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 03:25 Lysanias wrote:On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote:
Tanks need a buff! For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP. Remove harden shield, make immortals cheaper, buff tank. Now we all have crazy broken shit and I can stop building so many stalkers. Buffing tanks is just going to mess up any roach play a zerg would ever want to try instead of going the usual ling/bane. You are basicly going to narrow down what Zerg can do to Terran even more, wich is in fact the problem that is TvZ already.
yeah, I am not serious. The only think buffing tanks would do it make Tank/Marine/Mine more awesome. Tanks are neat, but its just another unit that would rain down AOE damage and force zergs to avoid the damage. If they are going to buff tanks, they need to make them set up and tear down faster. Straight damage buffs will just make the game more stale, not less.
|
On September 04 2013 03:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 03:29 Lysanias wrote:On September 04 2013 03:27 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 03:25 Lysanias wrote:On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote:
Tanks need a buff! For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP. Remove harden shield, make immortals cheaper, buff tank. Now we all have crazy broken shit and I can stop building so many stalkers. Buffing tanks is just going to mess up any roach play a zerg would ever want to try instead of going the usual ling/bane. You are basicly going to narrow down what Zerg can do to Terran even more, wich is in fact the problem that is TvZ already. yeah, I am not serious. The only think buffing tanks would do it make Tank/Marine/Mine more awesome. Tanks are neat, but its just another unit that would rain down AOE damage and force zergs to avoid the damage. If they are going to buff tanks, they need to make them set up and tear down faster. Straight damage buffs will just make the game more stale, not less.
I would be okay with an Armory level Tech Lab Factory upgrade that decreases Tank Siege/Unsiege time. Heck, remove Drilling Claws and replace it with an upgrade that makes Tanks Siege 2 seconds faster.
Alternatively, I'm actually not opposed to straight damage buffs on the Tank. Yes Immortals still wreck shit, but decent Ghost usage can help mitigate that. Damage buffs might mean that Chargelots ALSO no longer completely giggle at Tank shots.
Alternatively alternatively, keep those combined Armory upgrades and simultaneously tweak Swarm Hosts. I'll still bet on 3-3 Tanks backed by 3-3 Viking/Banshee any day of the week. I'll spend the extra gas on a few Ghosts and lol my way all over any Protoss composition that isn't 100% HT/Tempest/Immortal max upgraded.
|
On September 03 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:05 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 03 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
As expected. Zergs are still winning, but have not cracked the terran code yet. PvT is still PvT. PvZ is weird as always and no on really knows what to expect, except that it will involve a lot of force fields. Question is how they are winning, not do they. Last time I checked, a win is a win. We don't qualify them, or at least we shouldn't.
If the TvZ winrate was 50% but 11/11 rax was the only way to win, and 11/11 rax won every game, I wouldn't call that balanced.
|
On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote:
Tanks need a buff!
For what ? TvZ ? Because you can buff them all day they still do the same damage to a Immortal's shield in TvP.
Against zerg really Terrans do not need buffs, Zerg is struggling enough vs the cost effectiveness of Widow Mines and 4M, your just being silly.
My suggested tank buff is called "Double Shot", researched from armory, it would be an upgrade:
It would allow tanks two shots from siege mode for half damage
this would:
1) make tanks viable in tvp vs immortals
2) not really change/make them worse in tvz cause they wouldn't 1 shot banes or lings
3) hopefully not change tvt
your thoughts??
|
My other changes fyi:
1) +1 armor to carriers
2) remove drilling claws from the game
3) fix fungal growth (aka slight buff)
4) buff ghosts (lots of options)
|
I'm okay with a cyclical balance like this, P > T > Z > P
The numbers themselves are still a little lopsided (i.e. Protoss pwns Terran way more than Zerg pwns Protoss), but if an absolute balance is unattainable, then a cyclical balance is also fine.
|
Pretty balanced, but I think that 4M is still very hard to punish , even if terran has no info on the zerg's camp
|
On September 04 2013 03:17 bduddy wrote:
Everyone here debating 45/55 winrates over 100 games is a complete moron. None of you know even the tiniest amount about statistics if you believe that these numbers say anything about the state of balance other than that it's pretty good.
this
|
Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues:
NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%)
KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random
EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random
source: http://nios.kr/
|
On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/
GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
|
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
The statistics are pretty similar in masters as well, I do however agree I don't know why GM still exists in its current state.
|
On September 03 2013 03:53 ImperialFist wrote: Also maybe rebuff the infestor? Infested Terrans getting their upgrades back,
*heavily snipped*
Yes, please.
|
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
There still needs to be SOME reason why Terrans are often times so underrepresented there. I still think, that in the higher leagues until high GM or something like that T is still the hardest race and only after that, when you can micro like Innovation, it's actually strong.
|
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion.
is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible...
btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level
|
On September 04 2013 11:15 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend. i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion. is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible... btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level :(
Sigh.
Stick to the gameplay not being fun or interesting. It's meaningless to have people who were shit when the game was broken in favor of terran (large swaths of 2010-2011; hence gomtvt and Polt's relevance) to complain about the game being imbalanced now. Meanwhile, no one would bed on a protoss at the top level.
Besides, we would expect a gradual decrease once protoss began to figure out a way to manage no-risk drops. We'll see more hellbats in the lategame and more greed and a switchback.
|
On September 04 2013 11:26 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 11:15 beg wrote:On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend. i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion. is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible... btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level :( Sigh. Stick to the gameplay not being fun or interesting. It's meaningless to have people who were shit when the game was broken in favor of terran (large swaths of 2010-2011; hence gomtvt and Polt's relevance) to complain about the game being imbalanced now. Meanwhile, no one would bed on a protoss at the top level. Besides, we would expect a gradual decrease once protoss began to figure out a way to manage no-risk drops. We'll see more hellbats in the lategame and more greed and a switchback.
i think TvP is extremely fun and interesting, so nothing to talk about there. it's just my personal opinion that TvP is a little bit broken. and i think the majority of terrans believe the same. we just dont have a big spokesman like MC.
|
Isn`t imbalance in monthly winrates what sc2 needs right now?
Everyone complains about the stale gameplay, because people stick with what works. Now If we don`t repeat mistakes of the past and ask Blizzard to fix it for us, won`t players have to come up with a solutions and hence advance the meta?
Just saying, perfect balance would be terrible, since everyone could just stick with what they know best, and we see the same game over and over again.
|
On September 03 2013 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray. When you have to rely on the first two combat units you can build for your damage all game, this is the result... if Zerg or Protoss make it to end game without a deficit, the game becomes very hard for Terran. Blizzard needs to fix Mech. Give the Tank an expensive tech lab upgrade that requires an armory where it does a minimum of 45 damage to all non-armored units (including Immortals), remove the Mine and remove the Viper.
Remove the Viper?! That's basically the only interesting new unit of HoTS!
|
On September 04 2013 21:27 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray. When you have to rely on the first two combat units you can build for your damage all game, this is the result... if Zerg or Protoss make it to end game without a deficit, the game becomes very hard for Terran. Blizzard needs to fix Mech. Give the Tank an expensive tech lab upgrade that requires an armory where it does a minimum of 45 damage to all non-armored units (including Immortals), remove the Mine and remove the Viper. Remove the Viper?! That's basically the only interesting new unit of HoTS!
Hey. I love the versatility of all my new Protoss units.
|
Fun fact that some people are judging balance from 100 matchs per match up as 1win difference will make a 1% percent difference. 55%/45% => 55 wins to 45. it means that 5 more matchshave been won by a Terran in a TvZ.
Oh and for the TvZ Bomber vs Jaedong 4-0 means , if it counts as a kr winrate, +4% for TvZ winrates and +2% for TvZ int. winrates.
Same thing for TvP.
|
TvP made me stop laddering quite a while ago, I see things aren't changing much :/
|
TvP is so frustrating at the moment. If the Protoss is not completely bad and gets to the lategame I feel he is always lightyears ahead. I guess thats why so many Pros do the SCV Pull allin. Blizzard needs to do something to make the game more interesting.
|
Edit: Fixed. Thank you.
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ljux8/winrates_august_source_liquipedia/
Sample size is actually bigger than what the graph at the bottom right says.
While checking the data, I have found some errors in ChaosTerran's original work at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharing
If you go to the August one, 24 tournaments are used for winrates, but "games played per matchup" is calculated from only 15 tournaments. Therefore,
Wrong Corrected
TvZ: 283 313
TvP: 335 385
ZvP: 356 434
Cells needs to be fixed as following to prevent similar situations in future
M2 cell =SUM(A2:B16) =SUM(A:B)
M3 cell =SUM(C2:D16) =SUM(C:D)
M4 cell =SUM(E2:D16) =SUM(E:F)
April had 15 tournaments, that is, 16 rows were used, 14 tournaments in May, and 16+ since June. Therefore, Sample sizes in June, July and August data are all wrong. It's just a copy paste problem that is easy to fix. Otherwise, please keep up the good work, ChaosTerran and Wingblade!! Also, it would be nice if the links to both International and Korean google doc spreadsheets (ofc. view only) are attached to the original reddit posts from September so that those who are interested like me can check the original data by themselves. (I want to check Korean only version if available.)
+ Show Spoiler [Sidenote 1] +Also, "I" /ai/ column 1~6 should be fixed in a similar mannner in case there are more than 35 tournaments per month in future.
I6 cell =SUM(E2:E36) =SUM(E:E)
etc.
+ Show Spoiler [Sidenote 2] +
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Example:
TvP 5 games played, T wins 1 game, P wins 4 games
TvZ 9 games played, T wins 2 games, Z wins 7 game
ZvP 11 games played, Z wins 3 games, P wins 8 games
T winrate: (1+2)/(5+9) = 3/14, NOT {(1/5)+(2/9)}/2 = 19/90
P winrate: (4+8)/(5+11) = 3/4, NOT {(4/5)+(8/11)}/2 = 42/55
Z winrate: (7+3)/(9+11) = 1/2, NOT {(7/9)+(3/11)}/2 = 52/99
Distribution of win percentages
T: (1+2)/(5+9+11) = 3/25, NOT (19/90)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}=428/2970
P: (4+8)/(5+9+11) = 12/25, NOT (42/55)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1512/2970
Z: (7+3)/(5+9+11) = 10/25, NOT (52/99)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1040/2970
That said, when sample sizes of 3 matchups are very different, race winrates and distribution get skewed in this way. Maybe that's why ChaosTerran took "average" of two winrates, though it doesn't mean much IMHO. Personally, I feel that cell I7~9 and J7~9 need adjustments. At the same time, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret when sample sizes are different anyways.
|
@Sated Im pretty sure that from protoss perspective you find TvP very balanced and requireing equal amount of skill. I dare you to play terran in 1v1s for 2 weeks, you can only play TvP if you want. See how hard it is. The problem in my opinion is that storms kill shit rapidly and if they dont zealots clean up with 1 swipe. EMP cannot kill units, even worse - they dont even damage the unit for more than 40% (at its best) and after emping theyre useless unless P doesnt have obs or gets it sniped and doesnt have a back up one right behind his army (which shouldnt be happening on pro level). Snipe should be buffed vs light units and ghosts in general should do more damage to light units because right now marine has the same if not more. That will make ghosts fill the role in TvP that hellbats were supposed to but were nerfed for obvious reasons and we dont touch TvZ.
There has to be sth done about mothership core - it can harras terran early, scouts, recalls after doing a stupid commitment that every other race upon doing would just lose the game, buffs all stupid all ins from protoss, defends protoss from any early agression early game and that the most annoying when protss gets completle cought with pants down I mean I wish I didnt have to scout for protoss all in in time and have intel 40 secs earlier (at least) to build all 3 of my additional bunkers and instead I could just activate turbo protoss anihilator on my CC.
As to TvZ:
I hate widow mines. Theyre used because tanks just dont cut it. Mines are faster, cheaper, more mobile and produce way faster and you can reactor them. Why use tanks then?
I want to see tanks in TvZ again with mines used on the outskirts of the map to be a pain in the ass for the zerg and to control runbies. Tanks need a faster siege and sth else I feel (and currently no tank buff would hurt TvP). Also the problem with tanks is that they just suck vs ultras on all those flat maps, so I guess mayby buff damage vs massive?
- buff Thors AA vs mutas and vs void rays (thors melt) it simply put sucks and with new muta regen mech just gets rofl stomped by mutas as soon as it leaves the. It would be really awesome to see mech in TvZ again and Thor tank marine medevac composition. Do it for the viewers - that composition is just amazing to watch (Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG)
I totally feel like zerg should be allowed to get the hive and 33 in ZvT but as soon as they get ultras the game just sucks for terran because ultras just chew through everything making ground armies from terran look funny.
as to PvZ I will only say that I feel that zergs win only after huge muta switch since ultras are yummy meal for immos (MC didnt mention that hmm I wonder why) and hydras are so squishy vs storms. I also feel that void rays are too good with prismatic allignment vs both bunkers and corruptors. But thats my thought on PvZ you dont have to take it seriosuly since I play terran.
In TvZ I want to see games like the mentioned Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG (link to youtube). They were awesome to watch, the are awesomse to play and theyre awesome to commentate. Go ask your selves dear David Kim balance squad when was last time you heard Tastossis commentate with such passion?
To sum up, what I would like balanced:
- Ghosts attack buff dmg vs light, buff snipe vs light units (zealot takes like 7 or 8 snipes to die? lets be serious + no influence on TvZ)
- Mines changed to more of a map control - runby denial unit that originaly shredder was supposed to be (but I would assume thats going to be hard to accomplish)
- Tanks buffed for TvZ to finally replace the boring widow mine (faster siege, more dmg to massive (ultras), then ultras could stay as they are right now and we will see how it turns out.
- Thors AA buffed
- MSC made strictly defensive. Keep the recall to safety after I made a stupid mistake and commited thing but make it less helpfull when protoss is all inning and it cannot be insta defense for 1 minute after protoss failed at scouting and had no idea that sth was coming. Make photon overcharge able to be casted only when MSC is attached to the nexus with the attaching process taking 15 seconds that way protoss will have to scout and their lack of scouting could get punished with delayed cannon and when they want to push out make it detach for 15 secs so that they can still use recall.
|
On September 08 2013 19:59 Scoobers wrote:@Sated Im pretty sure that from protoss perspective you find TvP very balanced and requireing equal amount of skill. I dare you to play terran in 1v1s for 2 weeks, you can only play TvP if you want. See how hard it is. The problem in my opinion is that storms kill shit rapidly and if they dont zealots clean up with 1 swipe. EMP cannot kill units, even worse - they dont even damage the unit for more than 40% (at its best) and after emping theyre useless unless P doesnt have obs or gets it sniped and doesnt have a back up one right behind his army (which shouldnt be happening on pro level). Snipe should be buffed vs light units and ghosts in general should do more damage to light units because right now marine has the same if not more. That will make ghosts fill the role in TvP that hellbats were supposed to but were nerfed for obvious reasons and we dont touch TvZ. There has to be sth done about mothership core - it can harras terran early, scouts, recalls after doing a stupid commitment that every other race upon doing would just lose the game, buffs all stupid all ins from protoss, defends protoss from any early agression early game and that the most annoying when protss gets completle cought with pants down I mean I wish I didnt have to scout for protoss all in in time and have intel 40 secs earlier (at least) to build all 3 of my additional bunkers and instead I could just activate turbo protoss anihilator on my CC. As to TvZ: I hate widow mines. Theyre used because tanks just dont cut it. Mines are faster, cheaper, more mobile and produce way faster and you can reactor them. Why use tanks then? I want to see tanks in TvZ again with mines used on the outskirts of the map to be a pain in the ass for the zerg and to control runbies. Tanks need a faster siege and sth else I feel (and currently no tank buff would hurt TvP). Also the problem with tanks is that they just suck vs ultras on all those flat maps, so I guess mayby buff damage vs massive? - buff Thors AA vs mutas and vs void rays (thors melt) it simply put sucks and with new muta regen mech just gets rofl stomped by mutas as soon as it leaves the. It would be really awesome to see mech in TvZ again and Thor tank marine medevac composition. Do it for the viewers - that composition is just amazing to watch ( Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG) I totally feel like zerg should be allowed to get the hive and 33 in ZvT but as soon as they get ultras the game just sucks for terran because ultras just chew through everything making ground armies from terran look funny. as to PvZ I will only say that I feel that zergs win only after huge muta switch since ultras are yummy meal for immos (MC didnt mention that hmm I wonder why) and hydras are so squishy vs storms. I also feel that void rays are too good with prismatic allignment vs both bunkers and corruptors. But thats my thought on PvZ you dont have to take it seriosuly since I play terran. In TvZ I want to see games like the mentioned Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG (link to youtube). They were awesome to watch, the are awesomse to play and theyre awesome to commentate. Go ask your selves dear David Kim balance squad when was last time you heard Tastossis commentate with such passion? To sum up, what I would like balanced: - Ghosts attack buff dmg vs light, buff snipe vs light units (zealot takes like 7 or 8 snipes to die? lets be serious + no influence on TvZ) - Mines changed to more of a map control - runby denial unit that originaly shredder was supposed to be (but I would assume thats going to be hard to accomplish) - Tanks buffed for TvZ to finally replace the boring widow mine (faster siege, more dmg to massive (ultras), then ultras could stay as they are right now and we will see how it turns out. - Thors AA buffed - MSC made strictly defensive. Keep the recall to safety after I made a stupid mistake and commited thing but make it less helpfull when protoss is all inning and it cannot be insta defense for 1 minute after protoss failed at scouting and had no idea that sth was coming. Make photon overcharge able to be casted only when MSC is attached to the nexus with the attaching process taking 15 seconds that way protoss will have to scout and their lack of scouting could get punished with delayed cannon and when they want to push out make it detach for 15 secs so that they can still use recall.
How is your fix to TvZ, where Terran is correctly solidly ahead, to buff 5 underutilized terran units?
None of that addresses the problem with parade pushing.
Atleast attempt to fix the problem first...
|
On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray.
this
|
On September 08 2013 18:08 Orek wrote:I have found some errors in the data. Can someone contact ChaosTerran, the original poster @Reddit?And let him know about this post so that the community can have correct data from September on? I don't have a reddit account and I don't know if he has a TL account http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ljux8/winrates_august_source_liquipedia/Sample size is actually bigger than what the graph at the bottom right says. While checking the data, I have found some errors in ChaosTerran's original work at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharingIf you go to the August one, 24 tournaments are used for winrates, but "games played per matchup" is calculated from only 15 tournaments. Therefore, Wrong CorrectedTvZ: 283 313TvP: 335 385ZvP: 356 434Cells needs to be fixed as following to prevent similar situations in future M2 cell =SUM(A2:B16) =SUM(A:B) M3 cell =SUM(C2:D16) =SUM(C:D)M4 cell =SUM(E2:D16) =SUM(E:F)April had 15 tournaments, that is, 16 rows were used, 14 tournaments in May, and 16+ since June. Therefore, Sample sizes in June, July and August data are all wrong. It's just a copy paste problem that is easy to fix. Otherwise, please keep up the good work, ChaosTerran and Wingblade!! Also, it would be nice if the links to both International and Korean google doc spreadsheets (ofc. view only) are attached to the original reddit posts from September so that those who are interested like me can check the original data by themselves. (I want to check Korean only version if available.) + Show Spoiler [Sidenote 1] +Also, "I" /ai/ column 1~6 should be fixed in a similar mannner in case there are more than 35 tournaments per month in future.
I6 cell =SUM(E2:E36) =SUM(E:E)
etc.
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Example:
TvP 5 games played, T wins 1 game, P wins 4 games
TvZ 9 games played, T wins 2 games, Z wins 7 game
ZvP 11 games played, Z wins 3 games, P wins 8 games
T winrate: (1+2)/(5+9) = 3/14, NOT {(1/5)+(2/9)}/2 = 19/90
P winrate: (4+8)/(5+11) = 3/4, NOT {(4/5)+(8/11)}/2 = 42/55
Z winrate: (7+3)/(9+11) = 1/2, NOT {(7/9)+(3/11)}/2 = 52/99
Distribution of win percentages
T: (1+2)/(5+9+11) = 3/25, NOT (19/90)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}=428/2970
P: (4+8)/(5+9+11) = 12/25, NOT (42/55)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1512/2970
Z: (7+3)/(5+9+11) = 10/25, NOT (52/99)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1040/2970
That said, when sample sizes of 3 matchups are very different, race winrates and distribution get skewed in this way. Maybe that's why ChaosTerran took "average" of two winrates, though it doesn't mean much IMHO. Personally, I feel that cell I7~9 and J7~9 need adjustments. At the same time, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret when sample sizes are different anyways.
The numbers in the graphs (TvZ, TvP, PvZ) are actually accurate. I think the "games played per matchup" has a different algorithm, it's a mistake but it just a display error if you will and not connected with the results per matchup.
edit: The last graph (games per matchup) has M2:M4 as the set value and M2 - M4 have B2:16, C2:16 and D2:16 as their respective values. Which is why the number of matches played isn't displayed properly.
However, the winrates work with a different algorithm they include all of x:y. So all matches were included in the win rates.
edit: But yeah, nice find, I'm sure it'll be fixed for september.
edit:
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Where did you get this from? When the sample sizes are different you actually have to use this formula, because you are calculating an average between two different sample sizes, not the total of both samples. Take an abstract (and rather extreme) case. Zergs wins 500 out of 800 games in PvZ (62.5%), but only wins 20 out of 50 games in TvZ. (40%). Does Zerg really have a 61%+ win rate across both matchups? It's a meaningless number and very misleading. Because while they are losing to Terran, by virtue of there being more PvZ matches and wins their win rate is 60%+ across both matchups. So PvZ is weighed heavier than TvZ by a factor of 16. It just doesn't work that way.
|
On September 09 2013 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:
How is your fix to TvZ, where Terran is correctly solidly ahead, to buff 5 underutilized terran units?
None of that addresses the problem with parade pushing.
Atleast attempt to fix the problem first...
I talked about nerfing the widow mine and buffing the tank to replace the widow mine. Parade pushing? Theres no parade pushing with tanks. I think you should have read what I wrote and you only noticed what I wrote about buffs and then you went right away to stupidly saying "no" to any terran buffs just because fuck terran right? With that approach we will never achive anything so take your hate towards other races under control and make posts that bring something to the discussion.
I talked about buffing 5 terran units? I talked about buffing ghosts in TvP and ghosts have no existance in TvZ so I dont understand your problem.
Thor buff is only relevant for mech, theres no parade pushing with mech nor with thors them selves. Mech is not played in the TvZ match up because how much thors suck vs mutas with their new regeneration. Mech becoming viable would again take away from the parade pushing.
I mentioned nerfing widow mines to a map control unit from a unit replacing siege tank.
2 first have nothing to do with parade pushing, they neither nerf it nor buff it, last one is about nerfing the parade push and getting rid of such high widow mine usage.
|
On September 09 2013 05:24 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 18:08 Orek wrote:I have found some errors in the data. Can someone contact ChaosTerran, the original poster @Reddit?And let him know about this post so that the community can have correct data from September on? I don't have a reddit account and I don't know if he has a TL account http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ljux8/winrates_august_source_liquipedia/Sample size is actually bigger than what the graph at the bottom right says. While checking the data, I have found some errors in ChaosTerran's original work at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharingIf you go to the August one, 24 tournaments are used for winrates, but "games played per matchup" is calculated from only 15 tournaments. Therefore, Wrong CorrectedTvZ: 283 313TvP: 335 385ZvP: 356 434Cells needs to be fixed as following to prevent similar situations in future M2 cell =SUM(A2:B16) =SUM(A:B) M3 cell =SUM(C2:D16) =SUM(C:D)M4 cell =SUM(E2:D16) =SUM(E:F)April had 15 tournaments, that is, 16 rows were used, 14 tournaments in May, and 16+ since June. Therefore, Sample sizes in June, July and August data are all wrong. It's just a copy paste problem that is easy to fix. Otherwise, please keep up the good work, ChaosTerran and Wingblade!! Also, it would be nice if the links to both International and Korean google doc spreadsheets (ofc. view only) are attached to the original reddit posts from September so that those who are interested like me can check the original data by themselves. (I want to check Korean only version if available.) + Show Spoiler [Sidenote 1] +Also, "I" /ai/ column 1~6 should be fixed in a similar mannner in case there are more than 35 tournaments per month in future.
I6 cell =SUM(E2:E36) =SUM(E:E)
etc.
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Example:
TvP 5 games played, T wins 1 game, P wins 4 games
TvZ 9 games played, T wins 2 games, Z wins 7 game
ZvP 11 games played, Z wins 3 games, P wins 8 games
T winrate: (1+2)/(5+9) = 3/14, NOT {(1/5)+(2/9)}/2 = 19/90
P winrate: (4+8)/(5+11) = 3/4, NOT {(4/5)+(8/11)}/2 = 42/55
Z winrate: (7+3)/(9+11) = 1/2, NOT {(7/9)+(3/11)}/2 = 52/99
Distribution of win percentages
T: (1+2)/(5+9+11) = 3/25, NOT (19/90)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}=428/2970
P: (4+8)/(5+9+11) = 12/25, NOT (42/55)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1512/2970
Z: (7+3)/(5+9+11) = 10/25, NOT (52/99)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1040/2970
That said, when sample sizes of 3 matchups are very different, race winrates and distribution get skewed in this way. Maybe that's why ChaosTerran took "average" of two winrates, though it doesn't mean much IMHO. Personally, I feel that cell I7~9 and J7~9 need adjustments. At the same time, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret when sample sizes are different anyways.
The numbers in the graphs (TvZ, TvP, PvZ) are actually accurate. I think the "games played per matchup" has a different algorithm, it's a mistake but it just a display error if you will and not connected with the results per matchup. edit: The last graph (games per matchup) has M2:M4 as the set value and M2 - M4 have B2:16, C2:16 and D2:16 as their respective values. Which is why the number of matches played isn't displayed properly. However, the winrates work with a different algorithm they include all of x:y. So all matches were included in the win rates. edit: But yeah, nice find, I'm sure it'll be fixed for september. edit: Show nested quote +Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used. Where did you get this from? When the sample sizes are different you actually have to use this formula, because you are calculating an average between two different sample sizes, not the total of both samples. Take an abstract (and rather extreme) case. Zergs wins 500 out of 800 games in PvZ (62.5%), but only wins 20 out of 50 games in TvZ. (40%). Does Zerg really have a 61%+ win rate across both matchups? It's a meaningless number and very misleading. Because while they are losing to Terran, by virtue of there being more PvZ matches and wins their win rate is 60%+ across both matchups. So PvZ is weighed heavier than TvZ by a factor of 16. It just doesn't work that way.
Thank you for going to the trouble of checking the original spreadsheet data. As for winrates, as I noted, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret whichever way they are calculated. Not that many people care, but I believe people interpret these winrate numbers differently without knowing how these numbers are calculated. I for one think calling (60+70)/2=65% "winrate of X race" problematic, but I'm not a mathematician or anything, so meh. As long as those "games played per matchup" get fixed, I'm a happy man.
Edit: Just checked. # of games cells have already been fixed. Quick work.
|
Eat a snickers Protoss, because you become OP when hungry.
|
At the risk of looking gift horses in their mouths, could I make a suggestion? If the chart pictures were formatted as 2 across by 3 down, instead of 3 across by 2 down, they'd be readable in the thread, rather than having to open them in new windows.
In any case, thanks for the update
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FL0kElY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lZBFtsw.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2VGA4RP.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9orDwMj.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3C5jrBQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HzmLAe0.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O6kFRjD.png)
