|
On December 24 2015 01:44 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 00:38 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 24 2015 00:25 Charoisaur wrote:On December 24 2015 00:01 Empirimancer wrote:
Are Terran players who have a problem with the Adept really happy with this nerf? Wouldn't you prefer a longer cooldown on psionic transfer, or -1 to the Adept's damage against light units so they three-shot SCVs instead of two-shotting them, or making psionic transfer a researchable ability, or a reduction of the warp prism's pick up range, or something?
I don't really have problems with adepts but imo the proposed change is the best possible change because adepts are only interesting when used for early game harass/pressure. There they have an extremely high skill ceiling and micro potential while in large-scale engagements they are a pure amove unit that is cost-effective against almost all terran ground units. Keeping their strength in early game worker harassment while severely nerfing them in large scale engagements is the perfect change imo. This way they also don't overlap as much with zealots. The unit was designed to have a "core unit" role tho, not just for harrassment. and swarmhosts were designed to be a siege breaker... not every unit has to stay in the role they were initially created for.
Lol Swarmhost if one of the biggest failures in SC2 design, if not the biggest. Numbers of HotS viewers dropped because of the kind of games it created (me included). You don't wanna compare anything with that shit.
We can't give up on the idea of adept being a core unit just... 7? weeks after release. I can understand some terrans don't like the unit, but c'mon.
|
On December 24 2015 02:00 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 01:44 Charoisaur wrote:On December 24 2015 00:38 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 24 2015 00:25 Charoisaur wrote:On December 24 2015 00:01 Empirimancer wrote:
Are Terran players who have a problem with the Adept really happy with this nerf? Wouldn't you prefer a longer cooldown on psionic transfer, or -1 to the Adept's damage against light units so they three-shot SCVs instead of two-shotting them, or making psionic transfer a researchable ability, or a reduction of the warp prism's pick up range, or something?
I don't really have problems with adepts but imo the proposed change is the best possible change because adepts are only interesting when used for early game harass/pressure. There they have an extremely high skill ceiling and micro potential while in large-scale engagements they are a pure amove unit that is cost-effective against almost all terran ground units. Keeping their strength in early game worker harassment while severely nerfing them in large scale engagements is the perfect change imo. This way they also don't overlap as much with zealots. The unit was designed to have a "core unit" role tho, not just for harrassment. and swarmhosts were designed to be a siege breaker... not every unit has to stay in the role they were initially created for. Lol Swarmhost if one of the biggest failures in SC2 design, if not the biggest. Numbers of HotS viewers dropped because of the kind of games it created (me included). You don't wanna compare anything with that shit. We can't give up on the idea of adept being a core unit just... 7? weeks after release. I can understand some terrans don't like the unit, but c'mon.
Actually the numbers increased. However, they increased for all the wrong reasons imo.
|
On December 23 2015 23:05 Laserist wrote:
I was very happy to have a useful gateway unit alone without sentry + simcity support but Mr. Kim thinks that marauders should wreck toss gateway like always. If Adept will be armored, then we'll get back to Hots toss anyways, since marauders and roaches will dance on them. I never like to rely on good forcefields + positioning defensively all the with toss gateway army, early to mid game. Adepts were a fresh air.
We can't go back to the old ways. Forcefields were good versus Terrans who moved out without Medivacs, and Terrans wait for Medivacs now. That also means Liberators are on the field.
This change is just bad though. Protoss will still have to rely heavily on Adepts but Marauder/Liberator/Viking is going to be very difficult to stop. I need to go find out how Marauders stack up against Immortals with the change to their attack and change to Immortal's shields.
Adepts, especially in conjunction with Warp Prisms are too strong. But instead of this terrible change, the Shade ability should have a higher cooldown and maybe more of the attack speed should be moved to the upgrade.
|
The problem of adepts is their harasspotential, not their combat power. If you could tunnel and suicide into bases with marines or zerglings everyone would abuse that 24/7 too. A combatnerf is the wrong approach, the unit's stats arent that great anymore anyways, the shade and warpin are the problems.
|
Well, the new Immortals aren't as cost effective as I thought they would be versus Marauders. 14 Marauders cost 1400/350 while 5 Immortals costs 1250/500. I gave the Marauders stim and had them battle, and only a single Immortal survived.
And that is without Medivac healing.
Mass Marauder should work pretty well, especially with some Liberators/Hellbats.
|
People used Ghosts to counter the earliest aggression of Adepts, back when Adepts had more HP than Snipe dealt damage, now it actually one shots Adepts. Anyone having success with Ghosts? I know you can break Snipe with loading them into the Prism and probably Ghosts aren't that good if the Protoss is not doing Adepts, but I'm scared that this cool interaction won't happen, since this change will make Marauders the counter as opposed to the Ghost.
|
On December 24 2015 03:43 Big J wrote:
The problem of adepts is their harasspotential, not their combat power. If you could tunnel and suicide into bases with marines or zerglings everyone would abuse that 24/7 too. A combatnerf is the wrong approach, the unit's stats arent that great anymore anyways, the shade and warpin are the problems.
Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month)
Adepts cost as much as Marauders but have more HP, regenerate half of it without a Medivac (crucial in early engagements), and have have slightly worse DPS against light than Stimmed Marauders have against armored. Without researching anything, and certainly without taking a 10 HP hit every time they want to engage. Their stats are absolutely bloated for their cost. Or compare to Stalkers, 25/25 less cost for 2 less range, exactly the same damage output, and an armor type that means that unlike Stalkers they don't take extra damage from anything.
I don't think making them Armored is the correct solution, though. It's worth trying - anything is - but this runs the risk of making Marauders ubiquitous for Terran in TvP. I would have preferred a straight HP nerf and a DPS nerf (the crucial 2-shot/3-shot difference) that would make Adepts equally less viable against all early compositions.
|
On December 24 2015 04:33 ejozl wrote:
People used Ghosts to counter the earliest aggression of Adepts, back when Adepts had more HP than Snipe dealt damage, now it actually one shots Adepts. Anyone having success with Ghosts? I know you can break Snipe with loading them into the Prism and probably Ghosts aren't that good if the Protoss is not doing Adepts, but I'm scared that this cool interaction won't happen, since this change will make Marauders the counter as opposed to the Ghost.
Nevermind Warp Prism counter micro, Snipe costs 50 energy now. One Ghost costs double the minerals and four times the gas of one Adept, needs 50 energy minimum, and comes out later from tech lab barracks only. There's just no universe in which a Terran can have enough Ghosts with enough energy each to counter an army of Adepts. Maybe if theyre playing NR15. And I'd that's the case, why aren't you just getting Liberators instead? Terran already has a late game, micro intensive way to fight Adepts.
|
On December 24 2015 05:04 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 03:43 Big J wrote:
The problem of adepts is their harasspotential, not their combat power. If you could tunnel and suicide into bases with marines or zerglings everyone would abuse that 24/7 too. A combatnerf is the wrong approach, the unit's stats arent that great anymore anyways, the shade and warpin are the problems. Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month) Adepts cost as much as Marauders but have more HP, regenerate half of it without a Medivac (crucial in early engagements), and have have slightly worse DPS against light than Stimmed Marauders have against armored. Without researching anything, and certainly without taking a 10 HP hit every time they want to engage. Their stats are absolutely bloated for their cost. Or compare to Stalkers, 25/25 less cost for 2 less range, exactly the same damage output, and an armor type that means that unlike Stalkers they don't take extra damage from anything. I don't think making them Armored is the correct solution, though. It's worth trying - anything is - but this runs the risk of making Marauders ubiquitous for Terran in TvP. I would have preferred a straight HP nerf and a DPS nerf (the crucial 2-shot/3-shot difference) that would make Adepts equally less viable against all early compositions.
Adept based play without splash dies in straight combat against classic MMM in the lategame as far as I have seen.
Adepts certainly do not have only slightly worse dps vs light than stimmed marauders vs armored. The difference is massive. Even with their upgrade there is a 35% advantage in that comparison in favor of the stimmed marauder. (which btw loses 20hp per stim)
Adept
6.2 (+8.07 vs light)
9 (+11.7) with resonating glaives
Marauder
9.3 (+9.3 vs armored)
14 (+14 vs armored) under the influence of stim
Also there is still this unit which has more dps vs light than the adept and more dps against armored than the marauder and shoots air and costs less than either at equal supply which is the much more important component of MMM anyways. The reason why you will always have to rush splash of some form vs Terran. (ok, i guess monoadept beats monomarine; once you bring marauders to take some hits and you kite the adepts will still lose pretty hard)
Marine (a single one!)
9.8
14.7 under the influence of stim
|
On December 24 2015 09:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 05:04 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 24 2015 03:43 Big J wrote:
The problem of adepts is their harasspotential, not their combat power. If you could tunnel and suicide into bases with marines or zerglings everyone would abuse that 24/7 too. A combatnerf is the wrong approach, the unit's stats arent that great anymore anyways, the shade and warpin are the problems. Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month) Adepts cost as much as Marauders but have more HP, regenerate half of it without a Medivac (crucial in early engagements), and have have slightly worse DPS against light than Stimmed Marauders have against armored. Without researching anything, and certainly without taking a 10 HP hit every time they want to engage. Their stats are absolutely bloated for their cost. Or compare to Stalkers, 25/25 less cost for 2 less range, exactly the same damage output, and an armor type that means that unlike Stalkers they don't take extra damage from anything. I don't think making them Armored is the correct solution, though. It's worth trying - anything is - but this runs the risk of making Marauders ubiquitous for Terran in TvP. I would have preferred a straight HP nerf and a DPS nerf (the crucial 2-shot/3-shot difference) that would make Adepts equally less viable against all early compositions. Adept based play without splash dies in straight combat against classic MMM in the lategame as far as I have seen.
And I said as much in the first paragraph of my post. The problem is that before a Terran gets to late game he has to play early game and midgame, and Adept base stats are fucking bonkers in the early and mid game. Not just during harassment, but if a Terran wants to pressure the Protoss, or if his MM army gets caught out in the middle of the map. In these situations Adepts stop being fun units that require multitasking to use and defend against, they become Roaches on steroids.
And just to clarify - as far as I can tell (eg from ByuN's games) - Adepts only begin to lose in the late game because there are too many Medivacs outhealing them. If Terran attempts to split his army to do multipronged harassment, splitting the Medivacs, Adepts again become as strong as they were in the early game - which is to say bonkers strong.
Adepts certainly do not have only slightly worse dps vs light than stimmed marauders vs armored. The difference is massive. Even with their upgrade there is a 35% advantage in that comparison in favor of the stimmed marauder. (which btw loses 20hp per stim)
Adept
6.2 (+8.07 vs light)
9 (+11.7) with resonating glaives
Marauder
9.3 (+9.3 vs armored)
14 (+14 vs armored) under the influence of stim
Don't forget that Marauders get hit by armor twice now, though. So that 9.3+9.3 is actually ~7.3+7.3 against Stalkers (and now Adepts).
Also there is still this unit which has more dps vs light than the adept and more dps against armored than the marauder and shoots air and costs less than either at equal supply which is the much more important component of MMM anyways. The reason why you will always have to rush splash of some form vs Terran. (ok, i guess monoadept beats monomarine; once you bring marauders to take some hits and you kite the adepts will still lose pretty hard)
Marine (a single one!)
9.8
14.7 under the influence of stim
Marine DPS is high as hell, i think everyone would agree. Only thing that makes it balanced is how squishy they are. Low HP + clump + other races have better AOE than Terran. They're the quintessential glass cannon.
|
On December 24 2015 05:04 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 03:43 Big J wrote:
The problem of adepts is their harasspotential, not their combat power. If you could tunnel and suicide into bases with marines or zerglings everyone would abuse that 24/7 too. A combatnerf is the wrong approach, the unit's stats arent that great anymore anyways, the shade and warpin are the problems. Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month)
I just tested compositions that seemed likely to me in early mid game in the LOTV unit tester:
10 adepts, 6 stalkers, and 2 immortals (2250 minerals and 750 gas) with Resonating Glaives; stalkers positioned behind the adepts at the start of the fight, no other micro.
VS
24 marines, 8 marauders, and 4 medivacs (2400 minerals and 600 gas) with Stim, Combat Shield, and Concussive Shells; stimmed the moment that the first shot was fired, and re-stimmed when the first stim ended, no other micro.
Both armies with 1/1 upgrades.
The result is Terran wins with 6 marines, 7 marauders, and the 4 medivacs left.
If anyone wants to do tests with fewer or different units, let us know how it turns out.
|
You know, after watching some pro games today I agree that making Adepts Armored could be bad...
Even if I would love to see the Siege Taking making more damage against them, Marauders will simply counter almost all except Zealots in ground (ok and Archons)
I hope wathever move David Kim does, it could makes the game better.
|
On December 23 2015 15:49 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results. Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors. You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %. If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance. Mirror matchup count for Terran was low in Korea too. Doesn't matter where the person was born. We either balance based on the top players can do, or we balance based on what lesser players can do. Talking about balancing the game because "Not enough Terrans got to TvT" is silly at best. Are you new to the community? Korea has the strongest infrastructure for professional Starcraft II players, and it shows in the results. Going back to my original point: win-rate percentage must be accompanied by other converging lines of evidence - one of them being tournament representation (indicated by mirror-matchup count). I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players. Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy. So balance should be based on just the top 10 or so players. And then if a single Terran (or Zerg or Protoss) manages to do well, that race is apparantly fine. But when that single player decides to retire, the race needs to be boosted despite nothing having changed? If you are going to look at the absolute top the sample pool is too small to say anything useful statistically. You will need have a look at a larger group. Also I don't see any reason why you would want to look only at the few top players, why wouldn't balance matter for the millions who actually provide Blizzard with their income?
If a player can show that its possible to do well with the race--then we should not buff the race just because not everyone is as good as him. That's the only way to fix the game based on "balance."
Now, if you would like the game to be fixed based on lower level players--that is not about "balance" but is instead about ease of entry. Those are two very different problems.
|
On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 15:49 Sissors wrote:On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results. Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors. You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %. If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance. Mirror matchup count for Terran was low in Korea too. Doesn't matter where the person was born. We either balance based on the top players can do, or we balance based on what lesser players can do. Talking about balancing the game because "Not enough Terrans got to TvT" is silly at best. Are you new to the community? Korea has the strongest infrastructure for professional Starcraft II players, and it shows in the results. Going back to my original point: win-rate percentage must be accompanied by other converging lines of evidence - one of them being tournament representation (indicated by mirror-matchup count). I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players. Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy. So balance should be based on just the top 10 or so players. And then if a single Terran (or Zerg or Protoss) manages to do well, that race is apparantly fine. But when that single player decides to retire, the race needs to be boosted despite nothing having changed? If you are going to look at the absolute top the sample pool is too small to say anything useful statistically. You will need have a look at a larger group. Also I don't see any reason why you would want to look only at the few top players, why wouldn't balance matter for the millions who actually provide Blizzard with their income? If a player can show that its possible to do well with the race--then we should not buff the race just because not everyone is as good as him. That's the only way to fix the game based on "balance." Now, if you would like the game to be fixed based on lower level players--that is not about "balance" but is instead about ease of entry. Those are two very different problems.
That's not right. 1-2 years back I ran GSL simulations with blatantly imbalanced matchups and races and obviously such a race would win many more titles and place higher more frequently but the unfavored race(s) would still win a title from time to time. Ergo, just because someone does fine doesnt mean the balance is fine. What I found was rather that the racial representation and winrates would be directly related to the underlying balance. Having only 1 player keeping up is a strong sign of imbalance if observed over a longer time period.
|
On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 15:49 Sissors wrote:On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results. Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors. You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %. If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance. Mirror matchup count for Terran was low in Korea too. Doesn't matter where the person was born. We either balance based on the top players can do, or we balance based on what lesser players can do. Talking about balancing the game because "Not enough Terrans got to TvT" is silly at best. Are you new to the community? Korea has the strongest infrastructure for professional Starcraft II players, and it shows in the results. Going back to my original point: win-rate percentage must be accompanied by other converging lines of evidence - one of them being tournament representation (indicated by mirror-matchup count). I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players. Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy. So balance should be based on just the top 10 or so players. And then if a single Terran (or Zerg or Protoss) manages to do well, that race is apparantly fine. But when that single player decides to retire, the race needs to be boosted despite nothing having changed? If you are going to look at the absolute top the sample pool is too small to say anything useful statistically. You will need have a look at a larger group. Also I don't see any reason why you would want to look only at the few top players, why wouldn't balance matter for the millions who actually provide Blizzard with their income? If a player can show that its possible to do well with the race--then we should not buff the race just because not everyone is as good as him. That's the only way to fix the game based on "balance." Now, if you would like the game to be fixed based on lower level players--that is not about "balance" but is instead about ease of entry. Those are two very different problems.
A player that is much better then the rest can overcome balance problems to still win. See Zerg winining the first GSLs while Zerg was obviously not so good as the rest.
|
The first priority should be to nerf Parasitic Bomb. I warned Blizzard several times during beta to not let this broken ability go live.
Without Parasitic bomb mech be semi viable on some maps against Zerg. As it is Zerg is more or less auto-win against mech due to this ability since it is not possible to win against broodlord/corruptor supported by mass vipers.
|
On December 26 2015 20:54 MockHamill wrote:
The first priority should be to nerf Parasitic Bomb. I warned Blizzard several times during beta to not let this broken ability go live.
Without Parasitic bomb mech be semi viable on some maps against Zerg. As it is Zerg is more or less auto-win against mech due to this ability since it is not possible to win against broodlord/corruptor supported by mass vipers.
I honestly don't really like parasite bomber, but if it prevents skymech and skytoss to be viable vs zerg, then at least it's doing its job, although I would have loved to have scourge.
As for overall balance, I would have say that it's still very complicated to say anything about it, Zerg looked extremely strong and protoss very weak when we watched mostly-foreigner play and very small korean cup, but GSL seems to tell a different story for now.
|
On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 15:49 Sissors wrote:On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results. Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors. You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %. If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance. Mirror matchup count for Terran was low in Korea too. Doesn't matter where the person was born. We either balance based on the top players can do, or we balance based on what lesser players can do. Talking about balancing the game because "Not enough Terrans got to TvT" is silly at best. Are you new to the community? Korea has the strongest infrastructure for professional Starcraft II players, and it shows in the results. Going back to my original point: win-rate percentage must be accompanied by other converging lines of evidence - one of them being tournament representation (indicated by mirror-matchup count). I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players. Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy. So balance should be based on just the top 10 or so players. And then if a single Terran (or Zerg or Protoss) manages to do well, that race is apparantly fine. But when that single player decides to retire, the race needs to be boosted despite nothing having changed? If you are going to look at the absolute top the sample pool is too small to say anything useful statistically. You will need have a look at a larger group. Also I don't see any reason why you would want to look only at the few top players, why wouldn't balance matter for the millions who actually provide Blizzard with their income? If a player can show that its possible to do well with the race--then we should not buff the race just because not everyone is as good as him. That's the only way to fix the game based on "balance." Now, if you would like the game to be fixed based on lower level players--that is not about "balance" but is instead about ease of entry. Those are two very different problems.
Then why would we base it on what the current pro players can do? (Sorry, I wrote plural 'players' there, but obviously a single player is already sufficient for you to balance the game on). Why not just balance it on the potential of the race? So then we can for example start using Archon mode for balance. Even better, use micro bots to figure out balance.
Or you know, make the game fun and balanced for everyone. And of course there are limitations how much you can balance for bronze league. And no, we should not want a horrible imbalanced pro-scene to make bronze a bit more balanced, but at the same time imo it is stupid to cater to only a few players.
Regarding PB: My issue as (former) mech player is that its primary use is helping the Zerg air ball. If I don't want to go skyterran, I still need something to take out broodlords. Vikings would normally be what you want to use, but vikings are exactly what PB counters. PB is not a very effective counter to Battlecruisers. So guess what I do: I make a battlecruiser army. It forces me to go pure sky, since the flying support units (vikings) get anhilated by PB.
|
Arent adepts going to be stronger against lings and blings now?
|
On December 26 2015 21:59 Moonsalt wrote:
Arent adepts going to be stronger against lings and blings now?
They'll be the same against lings and better against banes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
