On January 27 2014 15:58 Aiobhill wrote: Just some random facts to interrupt the incessant plight of the diamond/master Terran. Upcoming Aligulac top 10 has six (!) Terrans and four Protoss. Intriguingly for three of these four Protoss 'vs Terran' is a subpar matchup. Only exception is sOs, who has a vT rating of 1983 and an overall rating of 1976.
Looking at these results and seeing the balance ideas of this map is most bizarre. Masters Level players of one race being unhappy and admittedly underepresented is a game design issue, not a balance issue.
And do you know how these ratings are calculated? The reason they are being high is that they were high before this month. 1month of games does hardly matter in aligulac. Like, even if you go 0-30 in a month, you probably won't lose more than 2-3ranks in aligulac. Though not a single of those 6Terran players has played 30 TvPs in 2014 according to their (aligulac) match history. There are stats like Taeja going 3-3 in TvP in this, Jjakji beating his way through EU qualifier with a lot of vP wins, that hardly influence his rating since the lower the opponent in aligulac ranks, the less you get from beating him, Mvp only playing 3games in all of 2014 (2-0 vs mana, 1-0 vs emotion). Not to mention that it shows that Taeja's, Jjakji's and MMA's vP ratings are falling and Mvp's and Polt's aren't changing so even there the trend is downwards.
Sorry, but aligulacs rankings are the last place you want to look for when you talk about balance. If you remember, Life was top5 during all of the time when he was playing Code A, yet now that he is back in Code S, he doesn't make top10...
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:46 Big J wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:24 LongShot27 wrote: [quote]
GSL CODE A this season, exactly the same amount of zergs advanced as protoss. The problem isn't protoss, the problem is terran. Thats what needs to be changed. Something is wrong in the Terran midgame, what is it? Im not sure. But nerfing protoss isnt going to fix things
Not really... TvZ was balanced (10-11; btw including the 1-6 Deadalus stats!), ZvP was balanced apart from Deadalus Point (20-15; 12-12 without Deadalus Point!); Meanwhile TvP was 31-8.
The problem was only TvP, whether you say T is to weak or P too strong I don't care, but there is nothing suggesting ZvX made any problems during Code A (apart from Deadalus ofc).
exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
On January 27 2014 03:34 pivor wrote: How those changes are supposted to help in tvp? Anyone else feels like each time blizz "balances" something, everything they do is make some as least as possible affecting or just booring changes to stop the qq? Protoss needs some hardcore nerfs to make tvp enjoyable, not some minor adjustments.
Broodlord/Infestor needed hardcore nerfs. Not this. Don't grossly exaggerate the issue. What would you propose anyways?
pfff... Broodlord/Infestor produced very similar winrates in ZvT to the last months of TvP.
Um yea BS. The lowest point in Broodlord/Infestor(according to Aligulac, it's much easier to track than the community made graphs was 43.3 percent winrate for Terran in January 2013. The lowest point for PvT in its current state was 54.87 in Protoss favor in November. That number feel three percent in December.
yeah, and no race ever had 79,5% winrate in GSL before = current PvT winrate. (worst point in BL/Infestor ZvT was like 65%) no race was ever as badly represented in GSL as Terran is now, despite TvZ producing pretty balanced winrates. Like Protoss alone is stomping Terran harder than Terran and Zerg did with Protoss in GSL seasons when both of those races had quite high vP winrates.
Sorry, those BL/Infestor whines these days are hugely exaggerated. It was very bad. But the way Protoss in the last months (yes, less than 8months of BL/Infestor ZvT dominance) has dominated Terran isn't far off. And BL/Infestor in ZvT would have been easily fixable with a reasonable Infestornerf, but it didn't need "hardcore nerfs". Not to mention that such would have probably screwed Zerg in WoL ZvP.
Did you even play WoL? Current state of PvT is nowhere close to as bad as infestor was. No pro is screaming "imba imba imba" in PvT, in the mist of a promatch(JYP). It was literally allin or leave if you don't do crippling damage PvZ WoL. Maru does fine, no protoss was doing fine in PvZ at end of WoL. PvT is slightly p favored, at least you have a chance to outplay your opponent.
protoss dominated end of wol, wake up :D
You're being sarcastic right? Zerg won everything at the end of WoL, GSL, Proleague, Foreign scene. There is a reason we call them patch zergs
On January 27 2014 15:58 Aiobhill wrote: Just some random facts to interrupt the incessant plight of the diamond/master Terran. Upcoming Aligulac top 10 has six (!) Terrans and four Protoss. Intriguingly for three of these four Protoss 'vs Terran' is a subpar matchup. Only exception is sOs, who has a vT rating of 1983 and an overall rating of 1976.
Looking at these results and seeing the balance ideas of this map is most bizarre. Masters Level players of one race being unhappy and admittedly underepresented is a game design issue, not a balance issue.
And do you know how these ratings are calculated? The reason they are being high is that they were high before this month. 1month of games does hardly matter in aligulac. Like, even if you go 0-30 in a month, you probably won't lose more than 2-3ranks in aligulac. Though not a single of those 6Terran players has played 30 TvPs in 2014 according to their (aligulac) match history. There are stats like Taeja going 3-3 in TvP in this, Jjakji beating his way through EU qualifier with a lot of vP wins, that hardly influence his rating since the lower the opponent in aligulac ranks, the less you get from beating him, Mvp only playing 3games in all of 2014 (2-0 vs mana, 1-0 vs emotion). Not to mention that it shows that Taeja's, Jjakji's and MMA's vP ratings are falling and Mvp's and Polt's aren't changing so even there the trend is downwards.
Sorry, but aligulacs rankings are the last place you want to look for when you talk about balance. If you remember, Life was top5 during all of the time when he was playing Code A, yet now that he is back in Code S, he doesn't make top10...
Yup, The best example is probably Jjakji. His rating has risen like 250 in the past month which is like 30-40 places while playing ZOTAC cups and foreign tournaments. Almost all the top rated players on Aligulac are players that get to play a lot of foreign events because playing foreigners does inflate your rating quite a bit.
Sage is the 3rd rated PvZer. I am not saying he is a bad player, but his rating is probably a bit inflated because of his opponents.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:46 Big J wrote: [quote]
Not really... TvZ was balanced (10-11; btw including the 1-6 Deadalus stats!), ZvP was balanced apart from Deadalus Point (20-15; 12-12 without Deadalus Point!); Meanwhile TvP was 31-8.
The problem was only TvP, whether you say T is to weak or P too strong I don't care, but there is nothing suggesting ZvX made any problems during Code A (apart from Deadalus ofc).
exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
I am not sure about mid game buff for terran, the early game is more the issue.
There needs to be more risk/reward when doing blink all-ins (the fact that they are hardly all-ins is a problem), the protoss can basically see exactly how the terran reacts before deciding to commit or not. While the terran either has to waste a scan (thus missing marines IF the all-in does come) or just blindly guess (if he guesses wrong, he either dies to the all-in or he is behind in tech).
The problem is that terrans have to delay their tech (medivacs, upgrades) so much due to the threat of the blink all-in that any mid game timing is gone. By the time they have stim and medivacs to move out, they are facing 2 photon overcharge which buys enough time for fast storm to be completed, not to mention that blink is a natural counter to drops . Of course, the maps in Code A doesn't help either because most of them are so good for blink.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote: [quote]
exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
I am not sure about mid game buff for terran, the early game is more the issue.
There needs to be more risk/reward when doing blink all-ins (the fact that they are hardly all-ins is a problem), the protoss can basically see exactly how the terran reacts before deciding to commit or not. While the terran either has to waste a scan (thus missing marines IF the all-in does come) or just blindly guess (if he guesses wrong, he either dies to the all-in or he is behind in tech).
The problem is that terrans have to delay their tech (medivacs, upgrades) so much due to the threat of the blink all-in that any mid game timing is gone. By the time they have stim and medivacs to move out, they are facing 2 photon overcharge which buys enough time for fast storm to be completed, not to mention that blink is a natural counter to drops . Of course, the maps in Code A doesn't help either because most of them are so good for blink.
Watching WCS challenger in all 3 regions, Ive seen Terran players do the same thing in every blink all-in scenario. They dont build high ground bunkers, or at the very least don't fill them. CODE A was filled with this from the casters "BUT THE BUNKER IS EMPTY!!!" This isn't going to change the fact that the maps were far from balanced but a good portion of those all-in's could have been crushed with 200 well spent minerals.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote: [quote]
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
I am not sure about mid game buff for terran, the early game is more the issue.
There needs to be more risk/reward when doing blink all-ins (the fact that they are hardly all-ins is a problem), the protoss can basically see exactly how the terran reacts before deciding to commit or not. While the terran either has to waste a scan (thus missing marines IF the all-in does come) or just blindly guess (if he guesses wrong, he either dies to the all-in or he is behind in tech).
The problem is that terrans have to delay their tech (medivacs, upgrades) so much due to the threat of the blink all-in that any mid game timing is gone. By the time they have stim and medivacs to move out, they are facing 2 photon overcharge which buys enough time for fast storm to be completed, not to mention that blink is a natural counter to drops . Of course, the maps in Code A doesn't help either because most of them are so good for blink.
Watching WCS challenger in all 3 regions, Ive seen Terran players do the same thing in every blink all-in scenario. They dont build high ground bunkers, or at the very least don't fill them. CODE A was filled with this from the casters "BUT THE BUNKER IS EMPTY!!!" This isn't going to change the fact that the maps were far from balanced but a good portion of those all-in's could have been crushed with 200 well spent minerals.
The bunkers aren't filled is because terran has low unit count and needs the units to be mobile between main and natural until stim is done and can afford to separate the units into the bunker.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote: [quote]
exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
I am not sure about mid game buff for terran, the early game is more the issue.
There needs to be more risk/reward when doing blink all-ins (the fact that they are hardly all-ins is a problem), the protoss can basically see exactly how the terran reacts before deciding to commit or not. While the terran either has to waste a scan (thus missing marines IF the all-in does come) or just blindly guess (if he guesses wrong, he either dies to the all-in or he is behind in tech).
The problem is that terrans have to delay their tech (medivacs, upgrades) so much due to the threat of the blink all-in that any mid game timing is gone. By the time they have stim and medivacs to move out, they are facing 2 photon overcharge which buys enough time for fast storm to be completed, not to mention that blink is a natural counter to drops . Of course, the maps in Code A doesn't help either because most of them are so good for blink.
It's really not the maps that have to change. Just look through former and current tournament maps:
- Shakuras Plateau: big ledge; - Tal'Darim Altar: natural attack/blinkable from 270degrees, main blinkable from the 4th - Dual Sight: ledge + double entrances to the natural - Bel'Shire Beach: ledge that is far from the natural entrance for the defender and short for the (blink) attacker - Xel'Nage Fortress: big ledge - Antiga Shipyard: yeah, blinkallins kind of got developed for this map; biggest ledge ever, shorter distance for the blink attacker - Daybreak: basically Polar Night main/natural layout for blink allins - Cloud Kingdom: yeah, if you get blink allined on that map, you wish you were playing heavy rain - Metropolis: small ledge with very exposed ramp (can't prevent forcefielding/TWing there) - Ohana: reasonably blinkable ledge and backdoor to the natural - Atlantis Spaceship: huge ledge - Neo Planet S: reasonable ledge ...
Through the history of GSL there were probably more maps that would be at least good for current blink allins, than there were maps that are definitely not that great for them. Unless you want to only have "no entrance at all" Whirlwind-type of setups or "tiny ledge" Neo Planet S type of setups blink allins have to change, not maps.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote: [quote]
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
I am not sure about mid game buff for terran, the early game is more the issue.
There needs to be more risk/reward when doing blink all-ins (the fact that they are hardly all-ins is a problem), the protoss can basically see exactly how the terran reacts before deciding to commit or not. While the terran either has to waste a scan (thus missing marines IF the all-in does come) or just blindly guess (if he guesses wrong, he either dies to the all-in or he is behind in tech).
The problem is that terrans have to delay their tech (medivacs, upgrades) so much due to the threat of the blink all-in that any mid game timing is gone. By the time they have stim and medivacs to move out, they are facing 2 photon overcharge which buys enough time for fast storm to be completed, not to mention that blink is a natural counter to drops . Of course, the maps in Code A doesn't help either because most of them are so good for blink.
Watching WCS challenger in all 3 regions, Ive seen Terran players do the same thing in every blink all-in scenario. They dont build high ground bunkers, or at the very least don't fill them. CODE A was filled with this from the casters "BUT THE BUNKER IS EMPTY!!!" This isn't going to change the fact that the maps were far from balanced but a good portion of those all-in's could have been crushed with 200 well spent minerals.
A lot of maps requires at least 4 bunkers (2 on lower ground and 2 on high ground). If you have fill 4 bunkers with marines/marauders, you basically have no 'mobile' army left. And when protoss sees this with their MsC, they just blink in to one of the bunkers and target it down, and they 'block' reinforcements using time wrap. That is the reason why pros are keeping their army near the ramp on the high ground and running to bunkers when the stalkers blink up (they usually have a couple marines on the edge to spot for blinks.
I think a cheaper sensor tower might help with this as well since the terran can 'see' where the stalkers are coming from. The difference in information in the early game (MsC with 14 range vs can't see how many stalkers are outside your base and where) is what is making TvP early game so hard.
Personally I'd like to suggest maybe each broodling cost 2 minerals. This way at least there is some thought maybe even hesitation over just spamming them out. The idea of swarm hosts works perfectly fine in the LORE of Zerg, however in Starcraft it would also make sense that they would need money for the food of spawning new units as silly as that sounds.
Also this would solve late game mined out free unit problems. Run out of money? No longer pumping out free units for an easy win.
On January 27 2014 18:49 DooMDash wrote: On the topic of Swarm Hosts:
Personally I'd like to suggest maybe each broodling cost 2 minerals. This way at least there is some thought maybe even hesitation over just spamming them out. The idea of swarm hosts works perfectly fine in the LORE of Zerg, however in Starcraft it would also make sense that they would need money for the food of spawning new units as silly as that sounds.
Also this would solve late game mined out free unit problems. Run out of money? No longer pumping out free units for an easy win.
If i have to pay for it, then it should not have a timed life. Just like everything else you pay for.
On January 27 2014 18:49 DooMDash wrote: On the topic of Swarm Hosts:
Personally I'd like to suggest maybe each broodling cost 2 minerals. This way at least there is some thought maybe even hesitation over just spamming them out. The idea of swarm hosts works perfectly fine in the LORE of Zerg, however in Starcraft it would also make sense that they would need money for the food of spawning new units as silly as that sounds.
Also this would solve late game mined out free unit problems. Run out of money? No longer pumping out free units for an easy win.
If i have to pay for it, then it should not have a timed life. Just like everything else you pay for.
Reavers you had to pay for an attack. Or switch to energy cost, in which it would coincide with infested terran.
What is still bothering me while reading through the posts here is the mostly positive attitude towards the ghost buff. I agree it creates a better window for Terrans to hit Protoss, it's the completely wrong approach imho. It's not contributing to the overall depth of the game, but further takes away skill to please current demands.
I don't want the game to get any easier (like auto mining, scan radius, upgrade combining etc.), I just want to get the feeling that when playing against someone and losing (regardless of race) to sort of know and acknowledge my inferiority in skill/mechanics.
It's really disappointing to see Blizzard repeating their mistakes over and over again (snipe nerf, terrible way of "fixing" the unit, tempests completely differing from their original concept of AA splash, removing a whole unit for Terran from the game because of the unwillingness to listen to the community).
This is not meant as a developer bash, it's justing very irritating to see community feedback being mostly ignored, I wish they'd be more open to ideas offered by the community (the folks that actually play the game in the end), e.g. providing different sets of balance test maps simultaneously with changes like less MSC vision or other things. They keep pointing out that it's just playing around with ideas (some of which aren't reasonable to me at all) and nothing of those changes are final, so what's there to lose to host a design idea contest every quarter of the year (or lined up with every season) where the community can propose changes to the game and the ones with the most votings and/or most appealing for the developers get implemented in a test map?
edit: OK, maybe 4 times a year is too often thinking of the intention to create a very balanced game, but it still would be an improvement and definitely a step in the right direction, wouldn't it?
On January 27 2014 18:49 DooMDash wrote: On the topic of Swarm Hosts:
Personally I'd like to suggest maybe each broodling cost 2 minerals. This way at least there is some thought maybe even hesitation over just spamming them out. The idea of swarm hosts works perfectly fine in the LORE of Zerg, however in Starcraft it would also make sense that they would need money for the food of spawning new units as silly as that sounds.
Also this would solve late game mined out free unit problems. Run out of money? No longer pumping out free units for an easy win.
If i have to pay for it, then it should not have a timed life. Just like everything else you pay for.
Reavers you had to pay for an attack. Or switch to energy cost, in which it would coincide with infested terran.
Reavers could also blow up 8 units with a single shot. Comparison is flawed. Though, if you're down with making hosts spawn microable scarabs, I'd be all for it.
Still not the same thing. You can micro away from and kill locusts. Front loaded burst damage is way better. Swarm hosts would be shit if locusts cost minerals.
On January 27 2014 06:36 pure.Wasted wrote: I've been thinking about feasible redesigns of the Colossus that would discourage deathball play and encourage micro from the Protoss. Stuff that Blizzard might actually possibly be persuaded to go for.
Increase Colossus dps with an emphasis of burst with longer cooldowns (this is a buff). Then, change its attack shape - instead of a horizontal line perpendicular to the Colossus, it becomes a vertical line starting at the Colossus's feet that travels all the way to its target (and/or past the target). Then give it friendly fire. (this is obviously a nerf)
Using the Colossus behind an army of Zealots or Stalkers becomes suicidal, because the Colossus will melt all of them before it melts anything of the opponent's. Keeping the Colossus balled up doesn't work. On the other hand, if you micro the Colossus around the battlefield between shots, so that it's always engaging the enemy army at a flanking angle, it will do even more damage than it does now.
Other option: increase dps, change the attack to a line from the Colossus's feet that travels up to a target, give it a 1-2 second "charging" delay before the attack activates. As it "charges," a red dot appears over its target so the player knows exactly who the Colossus is aiming at. Now, if when the Colossus attacks, there is a friendly unit within the attack's trajectory, the Colossus does not attack, selects a new target, and starts charging again. If there are no friendly targets between the Colossus and the target, the attack goes through.
Again, attacking from behind an army of Zealots and Stalkers is discouraged, flanking and all kinds of battle micro are encouraged.
Thoughts?
I believe OneGoal tested something like this a while back and wasn't pleased with the results. Their consensus was that, yes, this would discourage death-balling, but it also became overpowered versus worker lines, or something of the like. Their implementation became too devastating with proper micro. I do like the idea though, and I hope something like this gets tested in the future.
The alternative I would like to test is the Colossus' original attack as shown in the alpha build - instead of a splash beam, it single-targets units down continuously for given time intervals. Shown below:
From what I've heard, the reason this was scrapped was because it somehow overlapped with the Carrier attack mechanism. I'd love to see someone test this though.
I dare say they gave up too easily, then. A Warp Prism carrying a Colossus is an investment of 500/200. More importantly, it's an investment of two Robo units' worth of build times. If you lose it even after doing econ damage, you're still very vulnerable to a bio counterattack. If you lose it without having done any econ damage, you're seriously behind.
Risk/reward. I think that's what everyone wants Protoss play to have more of.
On January 27 2014 07:50 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:25 plogamer wrote:
On January 27 2014 05:20 LongShot27 wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:46 Big J wrote: [quote]
Not really... TvZ was balanced (10-11; btw including the 1-6 Deadalus stats!), ZvP was balanced apart from Deadalus Point (20-15; 12-12 without Deadalus Point!); Meanwhile TvP was 31-8.
The problem was only TvP, whether you say T is to weak or P too strong I don't care, but there is nothing suggesting ZvX made any problems during Code A (apart from Deadalus ofc).
exactly PvZ was balanced but TvP wasn't protoss isnt the issue, or else they would have rolled through zerg as well
By your logic, Terran is fine versus Protoss because they were fine versus Zerg, or else they would have been rolled by zerg as well.
No? That doesnt make any sense, the only imbalanced matchup was TvP
And yet you claim that Protoss doesn't need a nerf because the only imbalanced matchup is TvP (not PvZ). The reason he said this nonsensical thing is to point out how nonsensical what you said was. Not that buffing T while not touching P couldn't possibly fix the imbalance, it could, but your argument is flawed.
except it isn't?
Why do you think arguing like this is acceptable? I don't think you're helping your case out at all here.
Because the guy just came at him flinging shit?
TvZ and PvZ are both fine, but TvP is a little off, so some sort of tweak is needed. NOT a buff to T, and NOT a nerf to P (necessarily), but a change that maintains overall balance while improving that specific matchup.
TvP isn't "a little" off and a lot of changes are needed, but that is neither here nor there. Read the discussion, pay attention to the words. What LongShot said makes absolutely zero sense.
First, he uses the fact that PvZ is fine to "prove" that Protoss doesn't need a nerf.
Then, he disagrees with another poster who says that the corollary to that is, because TvZ is fine, we have also proven that Terran doesn't need a buff. (Therefore no changes are needed at all!)
You can't have that both ways. I'd say "logic 101" but that's an insult to intro to logic courses everywhere.
It's not slinging shit to point out that the words someone says don't mean what he thinks they mean.
If you had the decency to actually read through the thread you'd see I agreed with the overcharge nerf and said that terran does need some sort of midgame buff. Saying protoss needs some overarching nerf so that they sink back down into death ball mentality is what is wrong with the game, please do some reading before you argue.
If you had the decency to actually read through the first post of mine that you quoted, you'd see I agreed that it might be possible to fix the game by changing ONLY Terran and no Protoss. I don't disagree with your conclusion. I disagree with the way you got to it, which breaks all known standards of sense. A bad argument hurts my sensibilities. Plogamer was in the right.
EPT
