|
On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing.
There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
|
On February 08 2014 02:55 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions.
|
On February 08 2014 02:55 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
I agree with TheDwf that something like this has to happened to actually give terran a fighting chance.
As of now we might be witnessing the biggest imbalance since the days of WoL-beta. You just don't fix that by changing Ghost energy or making a single unit a bit weaker for Protoss.
As long as the MSC Photon Overcharge not is touched the problem with Protoss being able to go for almost any build and be completely safe behind extreme greed - making small changes on oracle speed and similar will just be a drop in the ocean of the Terran dilemmas.
Therefore, I find it terrifying to see the patch notes and find that Ghost now spawn with 25 more energy... O.o
And David Kim, in this Q&A seemed to have no solution or even highlighting the problem at all.
I wonder how many more weeks/months the scene can take this before Terran players start to leave.
|
On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Idra was a grand master Zerg and trained in Korea, what is your point? Do you think that Nani'wa gives unbiased balqnce suggestions? Why would being skilled at the game make you less bias?
Also the changes are to drastic. I will agree that Terran needs a boost, better scouting and more early options, but those are to much.
|
Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
|
On February 08 2014 03:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
I would just go full Icefrog and never respond. But I wouldn't be as consertive as DK either. I have always felt they treated SC2 as to "precious" and don't do enough crazy stuff.
|
On February 08 2014 03:03 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:55 KingAlphard wrote:On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous. That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions.
Suggestions deserve to be addressed only if they have some motivations behind them. Saying "please increase colossus damage from 30 to 100" can also be considered as a balance suggestion, except it is dumb so no one would waste his time answering and explaining why it's wrong.
Obviously, "protoss won too many games lately, the terran players shall be avenged, must nerf everything so that they won't be able to win a single game from now on" isn't a valid motivation.
|
4713 Posts
On February 08 2014 02:55 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
Perhaps you should take a look at his suggestions in depth instead of screaming imba immediately.
Probably only bad change would be the warp in change, a redesign would be better, something along the lines of making regular GW produce faster and making warp gates CD longer or warp in longer, though he was on the right track.
A WG redesign would make toss more interesting, it would reintroduce defenders advantage into the MU, it would make PvP more stable, which would lead to more flexibility in the nerfing of the MSC and would introduce a interesting new multi-tasking and macro oriented dynamic where toss has to chose between and rotate trough regular GW and WG if they want to reinforce better or harass more.
If WG are redesigned like outlined above then you can more easily nerf the MsC, which is in need of a lot of nerfs. I'm not sure why you are qqing about this, apart from the HP reduction everything has already been suggested by the community and pros, in fact the values on PO cast range reduction and vision changes are quite conservative.
A combination of MSC vision reduction would lead to the MSC needing to come closer to scout what is on the high ground, making it more vulnerable to being sniped, and the HP change reinforces this. The MSC should also never be a fighting unit, its already extremely strong for what it provides via utility, defensive and offensive spells, this just cuts down some of that power.
Oracle nerf is just reverting the stupid buff that went trough, nothing wrong with that, oracle threats along with blink all-ins are severely restricting the possibility of terran BO's and pidgeon holing them into a set of sub optimal builds that lets protoss be exceedingly greedy in either tech, upgrades economy or any combination of the those, having Oracle nerfed would be perfectly fine.
Notice from the above that, even though a lot of the offensive options of toss where nerfed, their defensive powers are still quite intact, PO still is strong, requires more awareness to cast but is still just as potent, terran needs something extra to do more damage vs protoss.
Stim research reduction is just a revert from the justified nerf that happened back when we where playing on terrible maps like Steppes of War, close spawn Metalopolis and Shattered Temple. Back then the nerf was justified, now though, with maps being so big and with the stale state of the mid game and inability of terran to pressure toss I'd say the nerf is no longer justified. It makes perfect sense to revert this one so that the window of opportunity where terran can do damage is increased slightly.
It also has the indirect benefit of forcing protoss to be less greedy and invest more into a earlier army, this will cut into their tech or upgrades or economy and further bring things into parity.
I do agree the storm research time increased might be a tad to much with the stim research time being reduced, but if it turns out its not then the storm nerf is also perfectly justified, it will force toss to be less greedy and actually get some units.
Reaper change is good, the scouting tools of terran are already limited and unreliable, this will make it just slightly better, notice nothing over the top was suggested, like higher speed or damage or HP, just a sight vision increase.
I also don't see what's wrong with the tank and immortal changes that where proposed. Firstly they won't spill into bio and make terran OP or anything because bio still won't get tanks and the immortal shields change won't affect marauders much.
What it will do though is increase the strength of tanks in direct fights, which is sorely needed, and will make them better against massive units, which, quite frankly they are quite pathetic right now.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
|
On February 08 2014 03:15 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 03:03 Gnosis wrote:On February 08 2014 02:55 KingAlphard wrote:On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous. That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions. Suggestions deserve to be addressed only if they have some motivations behind them. Saying "please increase colossus damage from 30 to 100" can also be considered as a balance suggestion, except it is dumb so no one would waste his time answering and explaining why it's wrong. Obviously, "protoss won too many games lately, the terran players shall be avenged, must nerf everything so that they won't be able to win a single game from now on" isn't a valid motivation.
Oh, I see. What does this have anything to do with Dwf's suggestions? If you feel they are the equivalent of your colossus damage example then please expand on how they are (it is not at all obvious to me that they are).
+1 to the post above.
|
The single increase is queen range to 5 ruined all Terran agression, causing the end of WOL to be the era of the patchZerg. But these series of buffs to Terran and nerfs to Protoss are totally acceptable and will not result in any imbalance.
I am sure that is exactly how it would work out.
|
On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time.
|
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
|
On February 08 2014 03:26 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time.
Also ultras would be much better vs immortals, tanks would be alot better vs ultras, and stim timings. There isn't just protoss and terran to think of when making changes to them for pvt.
|
Dwf wrote clearly:
Just some examples of what they could do:
And people call him biased.
|
David,
What are your plans in order to make "forgotten" units such as Battlecruiser, Broodlord, Viper, etc. usable in high level matches?
Who the hell included viper here ?
I guess someone who does not plays sc2 often.
Also i do agree with my fellow Terrans, overcharge is just ridiculous back in the day i had an awesome TvP by being aggressive just like the koreans i saw in code S, those guys KNEW you can't let a protoss just unhurt and tech like crazy your aim with all these small aggressions was to delay their tech as long as possible.
Today you can't do jack shit and you just derp around with a few marines trying to make him activate the overcharge without any chance of causing real damages.
+ Show Spoiler +I just miss my tank push so much ;;
|
4713 Posts
On February 08 2014 03:34 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately. I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps.
While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
|
On February 08 2014 03:25 Plansix wrote:
The single increase is queen range to 5 ruined all Terran agression, causing the end of WOL to be the era of the patchZerg. But these series of buffs to Terran and nerfs to Protoss are totally acceptable and will not result in any imbalance.
I could post a single nerf to Protoss that would have more effect than the X Terran buffs and Y Protoss nerfs I listed. The amount of buffs/nerfs in a given patch is absolutely irrelevant, all that matters is their impact. Again, I could, say, remove all of that, put "Photon Overcharge cost increased to 150 energy" instead and Protoss would be unplayable despite receiving only one nerf in this imaginary patch.
On February 08 2014 03:34 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately. I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
And why do you call this "bias"? In my analysis, Protoss would still have more options, a superior early game and a superior late game with the ability to defend in midgame, so yes odds are that it would still be Protoss-favored.
On February 08 2014 03:35 Araneae wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 03:26 sc2holar wrote:On February 08 2014 02:49 one-one-one wrote:On February 08 2014 02:31 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2014 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote:
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes. We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one. You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right? Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright. All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time. Also ultras would be much better vs immortals, tanks would be alot better vs ultras, and stim timings. There isn't just protoss and terran to think of when making changes to them for pvt.
Ultralisks would indeed be better against Immortals' shields, but if ultras are already hitting Immortals odds are Protoss already lost the fight. Besides, it's not like ultras dominate ZvP; quite on the contrary, from what I watched they only have a window before Protoss' armies get so strong that they effortlessly bash them. I saw way more Swarm hosts in ZvP than 2-bases dual ups lings + infests into 3-bases ultras.
Tanks in Siege Mode would be better vs ultras, yes, but that's not a problem since they considerably underperform against ultras in Siege Mode; right now, most of the time you leave them unsieged and shift focus ultras instead. I'm not even sure it would be better to use Siege against ultras with the +15 damage to Massive. Stim timings don't exist in TvZ.
|
On February 08 2014 03:43 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 03:34 MstrJinbo wrote:In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately. I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss. How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change. Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops. Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps. Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
|
On February 08 2014 03:43 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 03:34 MstrJinbo wrote:In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately. I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss. How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change. Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops. Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps. Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
|
4713 Posts
On February 08 2014 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2014 03:43 Destructicon wrote:On February 08 2014 03:34 MstrJinbo wrote:In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately. I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss. How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change. Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops. Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps. Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races. Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
I think its you that are under estimating the magnitude of the problem in PvT. Even if you nerf Toss's offensive powers the defensive ones are still intact and the MU isn't that much better because toss can still be very safe and greedy in one way or another.
The stim timing is, yes a big change, but I'd say its justified given that the initial nerf was done at a time with a very archaic map pool that, has since improved by leaps and bounds. The storm nerf I'm not sure off though I can see the direction its aiming for and can agree with it if the stim buff and extra freedom to be greedy doesn't open up a timing window for terran to strike. It will definetly also impact TvZ a bit, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing, terran's all-in and pressure options are already quite limited compared to that of protoss and zerg, this would make them just slightly more unpredictable and make the MUs a bit more interesting.
The WG change should be done as a total rework and a change that big should only be attempted during LoTV, I agree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
