|
On December 24 2015 10:19 Empirimancer 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) 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 forget that protoss and terran not always have the same army supply at all stages of the game.
I don't really know if it's the early third toss can take or the threat of warpprosm attacks forcing terran to play very safe or something else but from my experience at high-master league if I play without liberators and the protoss without splash he just rolls over me in the early-midgame, no matter how well I micro.
|
But doesnt zealots->marauders?
Zealots are even buffed and marauders nerfed compared to hots.
The way i see it, this will promote more early game tech from terran if adepts gets armored. Such as an early tank or more tanks even.
On live, you need to go heavy bio production from the early game and this is without knowing what toss is really doing.
So again, would open up more strategies in the early game.
Also, that new unit on robo, that is good vs marauders isnt it.
Many people say marauders will own protoss but i am not quite sure and i am very skeptical cuz ppl usually do bold statements all the time without some kind of evidence.
|
On December 26 2015 22:12 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 10:19 Empirimancer wrote: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) 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 forget that protoss and terran not always have the same army supply at all stages of the game. I don't really know if it's the early third toss can take or the threat of warpprosm attacks forcing terran to play very safe or something else but from my experience at high-master league if I play without liberators and the protoss without splash he just rolls over me, no matter how well I micro.
I dont see why toss would have 6stalkers in that combonation. 6chargelots or more adepts probably much better.
Also, isnt archons quite alright tanks? Maybe they aint but if they are, kinda good to soak damage.
|
On December 26 2015 22:15 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 22:12 Charoisaur wrote:On December 24 2015 10:19 Empirimancer wrote: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) 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 forget that protoss and terran not always have the same army supply at all stages of the game. I don't really know if it's the early third toss can take or the threat of warpprosm attacks forcing terran to play very safe or something else but from my experience at high-master league if I play without liberators and the protoss without splash he just rolls over me, no matter how well I micro. I dont see why toss would have 6stalkers in that combonation. 6chargelots or more adepts probably much better. Also, isnt archons quite alright tanks? Maybe they aint but if they are, kinda good to soak damage.
that's true, and because of the warpin mechanic toss has naturally an army supply advantage because their reinforcemrnts are immediately in the fight.
|
using banelings vs adepts is an incredible ride if you ask me
it's a 75/25 unit that takes time to morph while you're being dealt damage
you need 5 to kill one adept, and there's no guarantee you'll get a hit, nor the splash.
if you're in the position where you can afford the larvae and the banelings themselves, along with the surround that's required with the speedlings, you're already in a spot to deal with the harass.
there's a point at which 3-5 adepts are sitting in the gaps between your mineral line and forces you to transfer mining elsewhere for the next 10s.
you're right that banelings deter more warpins and more adept harass, but you're dealing damage to yourself. what are you going to do when they warp in 4 to 8 stalkers as a follow up, and just recall home after they forced the lings?
there were some interesting ways people were coming up with to help deal with adepts.
firstly, the cyclone to deal with the 1-base proxy variant with followup oracle.
second, walling off between main and natural
often if you can kill the warp prism (which you can) you only have the first wave of 4 to deal with.
it's just a dicey build-order situation which only players like TY (or followers) are practicing atm.
|
On December 26 2015 22:33 nanaoei wrote:
using banelings vs adepts is an incredible ride if you ask me
it's a 75/25 unit that takes time to morph while you're being dealt damage.
Banelings are 50/25.
|
On December 26 2015 22:33 nanaoei wrote:
using banelings vs adepts is an incredible ride if you ask me
it's a 75/25 unit that takes time to morph while you're being dealt damage
you need 5 to kill one adept, and there's no guarantee you'll get a hit, nor the splash.
if you're in the position where you can afford the larvae and the banelings themselves, along with the surround that's required with the speedlings, you're already in a spot to deal with the harass.
there's a point at which 3-5 adepts are sitting in the gaps between your mineral line and forces you to transfer mining elsewhere for the next 10s.
you're right that banelings deter more warpins and more adept harass, but you're dealing damage to yourself. what are you going to do when they warp in 4 to 8 stalkers as a follow up, and just recall home after they forced the lings?
You drop the banelings in the mineral lines. :D
|
On December 26 2015 19:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote: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.
So instead of telling people to strive to be as good as someone just change the game so that lesser players get better results?
|
RIP baneling builds vs adepts T_T
|
On December 26 2015 23:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 19:31 Big J wrote:On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So instead of telling people to strive to be as good as someone just change the game so that lesser players get better results?
No. Instead of telling players they have to be the next Tiger Woods to be allowed to compete you give everyone the same chance regardless of race.
|
On December 26 2015 23:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 19:31 Big J wrote:On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So instead of telling people to strive to be as good as someone just change the game so that lesser players get better results?
How can there be imbalance if only the winner of GSL is considered, and everyone else is a lesser scrub who should learn to play before he is allowed to have a balanced game? Since it is kinda hard to balance it if there is only one player in the world who is not a scrub.
|
On December 26 2015 22:40 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 22:33 nanaoei wrote:
using banelings vs adepts is an incredible ride if you ask me
it's a 75/25 unit that takes time to morph while you're being dealt damage. Banelings are 50/25.
He's including the cost of the Zergling.
|
On December 27 2015 00:04 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 22:40 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 26 2015 22:33 nanaoei wrote:
using banelings vs adepts is an incredible ride if you ask me
it's a 75/25 unit that takes time to morph while you're being dealt damage. Banelings are 50/25. He's including the cost of the Zergling.
1 zergling is 25 minerals, the morph is 25/25. He's technically correct, although you can't really build individual lings.
|
On December 26 2015 22:14 Foxxan wrote:
But doesnt zealots->marauders?
Zealots are even buffed and marauders nerfed compared to hots.
The way i see it, this will promote more early game tech from terran if adepts gets armored. Such as an early tank or more tanks even.
On live, you need to go heavy bio production from the early game and this is without knowing what toss is really doing.
So again, would open up more strategies in the early game.
Also, that new unit on robo, that is good vs marauders isnt it.
Many people say marauders will own protoss but i am not quite sure and i am very skeptical cuz ppl usually do bold statements all the time without some kind of evidence.
Widow Mines mixed into the MMM will counter the Zealots. And lots of people already mix in a handful of tanks.
This change more than doubles Marauder DPS against a Protoss core unit. Imagine how gamebreaking that is by thinking if we were talking about another couple of units.
|
On December 27 2015 00:33 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 22:14 Foxxan wrote:
But doesnt zealots->marauders?
Zealots are even buffed and marauders nerfed compared to hots.
The way i see it, this will promote more early game tech from terran if adepts gets armored. Such as an early tank or more tanks even.
On live, you need to go heavy bio production from the early game and this is without knowing what toss is really doing.
So again, would open up more strategies in the early game.
Also, that new unit on robo, that is good vs marauders isnt it.
Many people say marauders will own protoss but i am not quite sure and i am very skeptical cuz ppl usually do bold statements all the time without some kind of evidence.
Widow Mines mixed into the MMM will counter the Zealots. And lots of people already mix in a handful of tanks. This change more than doubles Marauder DPS against a Protoss core unit. Imagine how gamebreaking that is by thinking if we were talking about another couple of units.
And disruptors mixed into the adepts will counter the mines. We can do this all day you know.
So with this response, Marauders will NOT counter protoss. Next please.
This change more than doubles Marauder DPS against a Protoss core unit
HOW does it more than double it? Explain.
And lots of people already mix in a handful of tanks
IN THE EARLY GAME? Cuz i was talking about THE AERLY GAME
|
|
|
HOW does it more than double it? Explain.
Well, let's see.
Vs. Shields
5+5 = 10, will become 10+10 = 20.
Vs Hull
4+4 = 8, will become, 9+9 = 18
8x2 = 16. 18 is more than twice 8.
Mindbogglingly complicated calculations, I know.
As far as adding tanks, a lot of people leave start up tank production directly after the 1st Cyclone comes out. I don't know if it's a top level strat, but I've seen it a bunch.
Adepts will be as squishy vs. bio with this change as stalkers. Changing core unit stats this drastically without other large changes to compensate won't end well.
|
On December 27 2015 01:04 Bohemond wrote:Well, let's see. Vs. Shields 5+5 = 10, will become 10+10 = 20. Vs Hull 4+4 = 8, will become, 9+9 = 18 8x2 = 16. 18 is more than twice 8. Mindbogglingly complicated calculations, I know. As far as adding tanks, a lot of people leave start up tank production directly after the 1st Cyclone comes out. I don't know if it's a top level strat, but I've seen it a bunch. Adepts will be as squishy vs. bio with this change as stalkers. Changing core unit stats this drastically without other large changes to compensate won't end well.
I understand nothing from this post.
|
On December 26 2015 22:14 Foxxan wrote:
But doesnt zealots->marauders?
Zealots are even buffed and marauders nerfed compared to hots.
Yeah, but Hellbats > Zealots?
See the problem with that kind of simple thinking? Zealots fell out of favor in HOTS in the early game because you needed detection versus Widow Mines and because Zealots are terrible versus Widow Mines. Widow Mine/Liberator/Marauder is going to be awfully difficult to stop if Zealots are going to be the counter to Marauders. And that is without any Hellbats mixed in.
|
On December 27 2015 01:34 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 01:04 Bohemond wrote:
HOW does it more than double it? Explain.
Well, let's see. Vs. Shields 5+5 = 10, will become 10+10 = 20. Vs Hull 4+4 = 8, will become, 9+9 = 18 8x2 = 16. 18 is more than twice 8. Mindbogglingly complicated calculations, I know. As far as adding tanks, a lot of people leave start up tank production directly after the 1st Cyclone comes out. I don't know if it's a top level strat, but I've seen it a bunch. Adepts will be as squishy vs. bio with this change as stalkers. Changing core unit stats this drastically without other large changes to compensate won't end well. I understand nothing from this post.
Then you're not trying hard enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
