| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 21 2013 03:31 TheDwf wrote: Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy. Expecting a balance patch from ya  , since it is 'too easy' if you use 'common sense'. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
On October 20 2013 19:59 Thezzy wrote: Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi. The way to beat Tempest is not building Vikings, it's destroying the Protoss economy using the mobility of Bio units. | ||
|
r1flEx
Belgium256 Posts
or for how long the balance test map is open | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12042 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:38 FeyFey wrote: Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes. Maps where you can split the map north to south need to be narrow rather than wide to be in any way interesting. Match Point from BW is a great example of this since players could abuse mobility by moving up or down and moving across. In SC2 we've had Daybreak and Newkirk, the Kespa newkirk wasn't as bad but these games were played on Blizzard newkirk and much like Daybreak, Newkirk and any other wide map that was also narrow it meant you could secure your entire half of the map by holding 2 very close together chokes. That just isn't good map design. It was also why Daybreak was terrible in terms of as soon as carriers (I played mech in WoL) and Broodlord/infestor came out that it was impossible to abuse the mobility of those armies since the 2 chokes were so close it took 0 movement to go defend the path. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 21 2013 04:06 r1flEx wrote: does anyone have an idea on when a decision might be made on the changes going through? or for how long the balance test map is open they're waiting until after blizzcon, so that's at least a few more weeks | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On October 21 2013 03:34 lolfail9001 wrote: Expecting a balance patch from ya , since it is 'too easy' if you use 'common sense'.Is that you Dustin? I must admit. Your sarcastic comments are getting dull by every post. | ||
|
SeeDs.pt
Portugal33 Posts
In reality it still takes the same number of shots but in time taken it would be like reducing a certain number of shots based on zealots and old tank speed-> <current attack speed> * <desired shots> / <current shots> = (3*3) / 4 = 2.25 3 as baseline speed. 2.25 as new test speed ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pFukEGp.jpg) Think it would be an acceptable buff that affects mostly TvP still. Think the biggest things i'm not checking there are vs movement speeds, it would be more penalizing to slow units when moving out but i'm guessing people would have to be distracted to move the whole 2.25 before starting to move out, so usually just 1-2 shots as happens today. Easier to see on a test map Thors, ultralisks and archons would also become closer on number of shots to getting killed. Protoss wise it affects mostly the units which make tank based armies so weak, they would still be strong but not that strong. 2.7 basically sounds too weak of a buff in my opinion, even against zerg which only seems to affect the relation with an ultra. This obviously is just rough and quick calculations... but think worth to be tested abruptly and then reducing on the test map if too strong. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 21 2013 06:58 YyapSsap wrote: Is that you Dustin? I must admit. Your sarcastic comments are getting dull by every post. I just claim that while any of you may think that you know what is wrong with game or any point of it, you are likely do not in full complexion of this. Neither does David Kim, but he gets close to get his job done IMO. | ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ? It's been said many times that the buff is minor. If Blizzard is not willing to even try 2.5 on a test map there is no hope for a 2.25 attack speed. And I doubt that they feel that this will buff mech TvP. It's more of a small nudge towards a particular play-style. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ? In reality it still takes the same number of shots but in time taken it would be like reducing a certain number of shots based on zealots and old tank speed-> <current attack speed> * <desired shots> / <current shots> = (3*3) / 4 = 2.25 3 as baseline speed. 2.25 as new test speed Think it would be an acceptable buff that affects mostly TvP still. Think the biggest things i'm not checking there are vs movement speeds, it would be more penalizing to slow units when moving out but i'm guessing people would have to be distracted to move the whole 2.25 before starting to move out, so usually just 1-2 shots as happens today. Easier to see on a test map Thors, ultralisks and archons would also become closer on number of shots to getting killed. Protoss wise it affects mostly the units which make tank based armies so weak, they would still be strong but not that strong. 2.7 basically sounds too weak of a buff in my opinion, even against zerg which only seems to affect the relation with an ultra. This obviously is just rough and quick calculations... but think worth to be tested abruptly and then reducing on the test map if too strong. This is a reductive and overly simplistic way to look at this, for a couple reasons: 1.) Units don't operate in a vacuum. Blizzard's intent has never been to push a pure tank composition with no supporting units, nor would that be realistic or desirable. In a real game, its never going to just be Tanks en masse, they're nearly always going to have some level of support from other units. But as soon as you start adding other units into the equation, the "number of tank shots required to kill unit x" becomes a fairly meaningless abstraction because the tanks aren't the only source of damage. And on the flip side, opponents have ways to effect damage taken--guardian shield, healing from queens and medivacs, repair, etc. The overall effect being that isolating "# of shots unit x needs to kill unit y" tells us next to nothing about how it will actually play out in a game context. 2.) Reducing the time it takes to kill a unit, even if you don't reduce the number of shots, is still a substantial buff because the faster you kill a unit, the less time it has to deal damage in return. This creates a snowball effect--you kill their units slightly faster, which means you take less damage, which means more of your units live for a longer time, which means your units have more time to deal damage, which kills more of their units, etc. The line between "a strong but balanced rate of damage dealing" and "too much damage too quickly in a way that spirals out of control" is therefore quite thin, and its very easy to go overboard with a dps buff. This is especially true with splash damage units, because they aren't just killing single units faster, they're killing clumps of units faster. Does the Tank buff go far enough? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else at this point does either. But what I do know is that there are good reasons to be cautious about how much you buff the dps of a long range splash unit, and that the only way you're going to see if a buff goes too far or not far enough is by testing it, rather than creating some oversimplified spreadsheet. | ||
|
SeeDs.pt
Portugal33 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:09 awesomoecalypse wrote: This is a reductive and overly simplistic way to look at this, for a couple reasons: 1.) Units don't operate in a vacuum. Blizzard's intent has never been to push a pure tank composition with no supporting units, nor would that be realistic or desirable. In a real game, its never going to just be Tanks en masse, they're nearly always going to have some level of support from other units. But as soon as you start adding other units into the equation, the "number of tank shots required to kill unit x" becomes a fairly meaningless abstraction because the tanks aren't the only source of damage. And on the flip side, opponents have ways to effect damage taken--guardian shield, healing from queens and medivacs, repair, etc. The overall effect being that isolating "# of shots unit x needs to kill unit y" tells us next to nothing about how it will actually play out in a game context. 2.) Reducing the time it takes to kill a unit, even if you don't reduce the number of shots, is still a substantial buff because the faster you kill a unit, the less time it has to deal damage in return. This creates a snowball effect--you kill their units slightly faster, which means you take less damage, which means more of your units live for a longer time, which means your units have more time to deal damage, which kills more of their units, etc. The line between "a strong but balanced rate of damage dealing" and "too much damage too quickly in a way that spirals out of control" is therefore quite thin, and its very easy to go overboard with a dps buff. This is especially true with splash damage units, because they aren't just killing single units faster, they're killing clumps of units faster. Does the Tank buff go far enough? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else at this point does either. But what I do know is that there are good reasons to be cautious about how much you buff the dps of a long range splash unit, and that the only way you're going to see if a buff goes too far or not far enough is by testing it, rather than creating some oversimplified spreadsheet. I agree , thought i added something that pointed to being simplistic but the wording wasn't enough. I just picked an interesting post about it and extended calculations on it to see direct effects.Ofc it has more effects but it's impossible to model that simply, the point is to consider on a test map not going straight live. If we can't abuse (which the mine was at start so why not the tank?) on a test map where will we? the time taken/number of shots only take a higher relevance on units above 3-4 shots from the baseline anyway. But even that can be calculated in a similar way too although a bit more complex. it's impossible to model all combinations and factors... it would need some AI algorithms and still take a while... Hence why we look at it a bit simplistic, have a gut feeling on "how bad would it be?" and test it. On that table the 10% are pretty much irrelevant on all matchups, and from posts i read here and there people don't notice differences while playing either. so basically i'm agreeing with you on all points, just adding that these oversimplied spreadsheets gives an idea of how bad/good it can be in a simplified way. To me it's still worth putting on a test map, i'm assuming they tested some but i have no info on what they test internally so i have to give opinions based on what i know, or what they don't share. | ||
|
SeeDs.pt
Portugal33 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:03 pmp10 wrote: It's been said many times that the buff is minor. If Blizzard is not willing to even try 2.5 on a test map there is no hope for a 2.25 attack speed. And I doubt that they feel that this will buff mech TvP. It's more of a small nudge towards a particular play-style. the mentioned i was referring was the number of tank shots and that post. Couldnt find much in the search without too many hits and didnt seem to allow search in just 1 thread. Do agree and think they wont do anything unfortunately, just adding that i also think it should be tested more agressively at first test map iterations and then reduced. Instead i ended up seeing more posts about people not noticing a difference. Can be done like that too but i guess a significant change just takes longer to test. It would kinda reduce the number of tanks needed for critical mass like status with the current stats at least. Which acts almost like a supply reduction. For TvP alone probably the safest would be the gimmick buff mentioned somewhere before, about extra damage to shields instead, but that would probably also make it overkill to stalkers/archons and almost the same to immortals. But i really hardly know much about it, i play mostly zerg and dunno how well ghosts mix in, considering gas costs and all. | ||
|
dukem
Norway189 Posts
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:46 SeeDs.pt wrote: the mentioned i was referring was the number of tank shots and that post. Couldnt find much in the search without too many hits and didnt seem to allow search in just 1 thread. Do agree and think they wont do anything unfortunately, just adding that i also think it should be tested more agressively at first test map iterations and then reduced. Instead i ended up seeing more posts about people not noticing a difference. Can be done like that too but i guess a significant change just takes longer to test. It would kinda reduce the number of tanks needed for critical mass like status with the current stats at least. Which acts almost like a supply reduction. For TvP alone probably the safest would be the gimmick buff mentioned somewhere before, about extra damage to shields instead, but that would probably also make it overkill to stalkers/archons and almost the same to immortals. But i really hardly know much about it, i play mostly zerg and dunno how well ghosts mix in, considering gas costs and all. Since you talked about supply reduction, I just wanted to bring something to attention that is relevant to the tank discussion. In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage Both do the same job of destroying units clumps at a time, but while the Reaver allowed protoss 14 more supply of wiggle room at the cost of difficult micro, Colossus are mostly useless *until* you get the 3-4 critical mass. This is due to damage output. 300/200 is too much to deal a mere 30 damage a shot. Reavers gave protoss 100 damage a shot for 200/100. The end result is that you take up 4-5 times the amount of supply to perform the task that 6 supply of reaver/shuttle used to take up resulting in deathball play. Siege Tanks are suffering the same thing. SC2 tanks take up 25% more gas and 50% more supply per tank while not only dealing less damage but facing foes with more anti-tank tech than BW did. Players will only use units that are effective at hitting attack breakpoints. TvT is fine because marines die quickly to tanks. This is not the same with zealot/Immortal. If mech play wants to get big you need to provide a way for terran to circumvent immortal shields and be able to threaten zealots. This could be anything from awkward +shields buff, or simply buffing emp, or giving the Raven specifically anti-protoss spells, etc... But there is no way Mech will come back in TvP if tanks are weaker than BW and the tools Protoss have against tanks are stronger than in BW. Why? Because the fight was even back then, cutting the legs off one side and buffing the other side will make the matchup inherently uneven. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg. Zerg mad, zerg vote approve. Just that on TL.net Zerg seems to be the least represented race. (according to the reasoning for the "Zerg Pro Help Me Thread" and other polls that were around) | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage I'm pretty sure if Colossi cost less supply while doing way more damage, all that would happen would be people would just build Colossi + antiair. It wouldn't be lots of single Colossi spread out across the map, it would just be like 20 Colossi in a big clump a-moving across the map oneshotting everything that exists on the ground. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg. Zerg mad, zerg vote approve. Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases. | ||
|
fried_rice
198 Posts
On October 26 2013 00:47 lolfail9001 wrote: Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases. Wat? In what league? I'm in Masters and for this whole season it seems like I'm playing Zerg 6 out of 10 games. EDIT: Which is fine by me as I have a pretty good TvZ winrate. | ||
|
goody153
44280 Posts
On October 21 2013 03:40 Arco wrote: The way to beat Tempest is not building Vikings, it's destroying the Protoss economy using the mobility of Bio units. its not necessarily the case always .. i saw avilo raping tempest + templar with raven(he built like 20 ravens)+viking+hellion(to snipe templars) .. it was weird but almost always worked out for him .. hes gm on eu/na even though its not on the highest level(korea gm) .. i suppose it counts right ? | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On October 26 2013 01:20 fried_rice wrote: Wat? In what league? I'm in Masters and for this whole season it seems like I'm playing Zerg 6 out of 10 games. EDIT: Which is fine by me as I have a pretty good TvZ winrate. Now I come where TvZ is by far my worst matchup  Technically lolfail9001 is correct, Terran is played as much as Zerg. However what was probably *cough* a small oversight on his part he forgot to mention that is only because bronze has way more terrans. In silver it is just a bit more zerg, and after that alot more zerg in every league. Considering I think it is save to say that those visiting TL will generally be higher ranked than random players, there is a good chance there are here more zerg than terran players. Just checked for me personally, 56% more games vs zerg than vs terran, 34% more vs toss than vs terran @ high diamond. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
