EPTBalance Test Map Soon July 8th - Page 24
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
johnbongham
451 Posts
| ||
|
varsovie
Canada326 Posts
On July 10 2014 02:29 Hider wrote: Why do you make these types of posts to insult other people when you in fact do not understand how the system works at all. You are not gonna have players of equal (skill)caliber playing each other if one race is UP. The stronger race is gonna have more of lesser skilled player taking advantage of their race and thus gets further in tournaments + qualifies for more tournaments than the weaker race. Those players should not have a win/rate of 50/50 against the very few terran players manging to qualify for the same tournament. That's why it's especially alarming when terran win/rates are below 50%, but not alarming when ZvT or PvT win/rates are below 50%. That's assuming all Z and P are worse than T players BECAUSE they're more numerous. If we take a bell curve more PorZ simply means more very good players. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 11 2014 00:31 varsovie wrote: That's assuming all Z and P are worse than T players BECAUSE they're more numerous. If we take a bell curve more PorZ simply means more very good players. The overall population is not P or Z favoured, it's merely that there are less T games in tournaments (because they get knocked out in earlier rounds/not selected by coaches (proleague specific). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9408 Posts
On July 11 2014 00:31 varsovie wrote: That's assuming all Z and P are worse than T players BECAUSE they're more numerous. If we take a bell curve more PorZ simply means more very good players. No, we already know that the amount of active terran, p and z players are very similar (nios.kr for source here). Assuming the average T player = the average P and Z player in skill, then there shold be roughly equally amount of P, T and Z player egible for competitive play. But there isn't. Instead, the top X% of T players are playing at a competiive players and being faced up against top X +Y% of P/Z players, where Y > 0. According to the bell curve, the top X% should have a win/rate above 50% against the top X%+Y%. The fact that this isn't the case is quite alarming. | ||
|
linuxguru1
110 Posts
On July 09 2014 04:49 Ctone23 wrote: Oh no worries. I was just trying to draw damage comparison. You're right.... RIP probes lol.. 2 radius doing 40 damage is going to obliterate probes. I like it  EDIT: Hell, if you have 2 nicely placed widow mines where the 2.5 radius intersected... say bye bye to all the probes. Exactly my point... | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 10 2014 12:06 pure.Wasted wrote: SCV all-ins are stupid. If I had my way, they wouldn't exist. Also they wouldn't need to exist, because Terrans would feel comfortable going up against late-game Protoss armies. SCV all-ins beating Colossus openings doesn't mean Colossus is balanced. Archon toilet beat plenty of BL/Infestor compositions... and Archon toilet was still stupid, and BL/Infestor was still imbalanced. Actually, it would imply that colossus is underpowered. Units don't exist in a void where the only thing that matters is how that unit interacts on its own. Timings matter, costs matter, so on and so forth. If a timing exists where terran can pull workers and attack and win more than half the time against colossus openings, then colossus openings are weak. Now, I don't actually think it's underpowered, because I think it's possible for protoss to make adjustments to deal with the scv all-in. If you skip templar tech entirely and never go for it, you can have more gateway units, afford more sentries, and make use of guardian shield and forcefield to help out against the pull. The problem with that is if the scv all-in doesn't come, your templar are going to be late, meaning bio/viking is way strong for a good period of time. It's a meta-game move, you have to predict an scv all-in: a move that has few tells because terran goes for the third base before hand and can always choose to just not do it. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Still, going colossus every game makes the matchup really damn boring. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 11 2014 01:08 Teoita wrote: Safe colossus builds are overall decent even though an scv pull doesnt come; at worst the delay they force in templar tech translates in a 3/3 timing with a few less archons than normal. Still, going colossus every game makes the matchup really damn boring. I suspect there's a strong timing terran could hit against them with a good amount of vikings before 3/3 finishes, but until we actually see someone attempt it we won't know. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/412475-rain-vs-flash-tl-strategy-spotlight | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 11 2014 01:30 Teoita wrote: There is but that timing can be held: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/412475-rain-vs-flash-tl-strategy-spotlight All timings can be held, which is why I'm not calling anything imba =p. Just because something is hard does not mean it's impossible. People in these discussions often confuse hard with imbalanced or underpowered. If it's possible for the best player in the world to do it, it's not underpowered, others are just lacking skill. That said, I'll bet that timing beats a lot of players in practice for Flash. Still, I'm struggling to see how templar openings will be viable after another mine buff. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Again, my critique of the mine buff for PvT is only from a spectator's point of view. Balance wise i think it's perfectly fine. | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
I get home in about 6 hours if anyone wants to jump into some customs.. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3301 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461533-star-hangshow-s4e4-balance-talk-with-flash | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On July 11 2014 01:48 purakushi wrote: Blizzard needs to listen: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461533-star-hangshow-s4e4-balance-talk-with-flash Edit: NVM, sounds like they want LoTV to be more like BW. Can't say I blame them, but highly doubt Blizz is interested in making the game harder. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24237 Posts
Edit : by the way, still no hint about LotV release ? Are we going to have an announcement in Blizzcon ? | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 11 2014 02:24 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't know if LotV is going to be more like BW, but HotS did so many things wrong LotV needs to happen quickly. I really hope msc is going to get a serious rework, oracles, Tempest and SH will be removed and Terran lategame will get some love. Edit : by the way, still no hint about LotV release ? Are we going to have an announcement in Blizzcon ? It's fortunate you aren't in charge of game design, or we'd be back in GomTvT. When discussing design, your first decision should not be "remove everything I don't like". Tempest is necessary for protoss so that PvZ isn't a horrid nightmare. It's also the only thing making it so that super late game TvP isn't super terran favored like it was in WoL. Oracle is a good idea that just happens to be a little bit too quick, it should have its speed reverted and add a speed upgrade that can be researched. Swarm hosts are fine at the moment. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Sounds like a stormdrop.  | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Stormdrops rarely kill that many workers. They usually get a few. It's not hard to pull your workers out of the storm in time, as it takes 3 seconds of sitting in the storms before they die, and workers typically move out of them on their own for enough of that. Stormdrops also can't come as early in the game as mine drops. It's not hard to see that killing 12 workers at the 8 minute mark is more impactful than killing 14 workers at the 15 minute mark. I don't like the comparison, but I don't think mine drops are unfair or imbalanced, so don't think I'm arguing that they shouldn't be buffed or should be nerfed because of drops. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 11 2014 03:21 Whitewing wrote: Stormdrops rarely kill that many workers. They usually get a few. It's not hard to pull your workers out of the storm in time, as it takes 3 seconds of sitting in the storms before they die, and workers typically move out of them on their own for enough of that. Stormdrops also can't come as early in the game as mine drops. It's not hard to see that killing 12 workers at the 8 minute mark is more impactful than killing 14 workers at the 15 minute mark. I don't like the comparison, but I don't think mine drops are unfair or imbalanced, so don't think I'm arguing that they shouldn't be buffed or should be nerfed because of drops. It's also not hard to pull away your workers before the mines go off though, if you have an eye on the minimap. In either case, if you are not watching, you are going to pull too late. But of course the timing when the one or other can occur is very different. Yet, like you say, it's not like we currently have overpowered minedrops in the game. That's of course mucuh more complicated than "has the potential to kill X units in Y seconds". I would rather have blizzard remove shit that fucks up mineral lines in 2-3seconds, rather than add more of that stuff. Imo, hellions are a good benchmark for a strong workerkiller. Anything that has the potential to be stronger is very, very frustrating to deal with. | ||
|
Kestnuts
United States29 Posts
| ||
| ||
