EPTBlizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results.
This week's balance test map - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
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. This is what nobody should go. Balance patches has been made exactly so in the past 5years. Results?! Maybe better end-results but the game was damn boring, ruined all exciting moments/timings/fights etc. | ||
|
K_osss
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3486 Posts
| ||
|
mentalmath
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
On December 23 2015 07:12 K_osss wrote: I'm not a fan of the Adept armor change. I think it's unnecessary. I'm torn on it. I definitely think something needs to be done about PvT early game. But it's what a balance test map should be for, shouldn't it ? Testing things. They didn't say the change was going to go through, maybe in the end they'll buff T early game, or do nothing... | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
| ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
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 %. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote: 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. | ||
|
blooblooblahblah
Australia4163 Posts
I'm fairly sure adepts will become a useless unit if they go through with this change, which is frustrating because the adept isn't that good as the game goes on to begin with. I'd much rather see things like increased cool down between shades, reducing the cost of the cyclone etc.. also increase the build time and the cost of warp prisms (seriously, this unit is so good and only costs 200 minerals and no gas??? make the warp prism an actual investment! and delay the timing in which it can hit the terran). They can do so many things that can help us in the problematic stage of the game they're addressing, without ruining the unit in the parts of the game where it doesn't even need tweaking. Remember when blink stalkers were too strong in TvP? It's not like people will winning 200/200 fights with pure blink stalker, it was a certain part of early game where blink stalkers were too strong. So what did they do? They increased research time for blink, they nerfed the mothership core vision range, they didn't alter the stalkers themselves and nerf them into oblivion. This helped make early game TvP better without affecting the usefulness of the staker as a whole in the other parts of the game. I don't understand why Blizzard wouldn't take the game approach with the adept. | ||
|
FruitsPunchSamurai
United Kingdom87 Posts
Not a big fan of the armour type change, mostly because it doesn't really look right (they don't look any more armoured than zealots). The main problem with adepts in my mind is that they kill SCVs too fast, their strength in an army isn't particularly extraordinary. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote: 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. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote: 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. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote: 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). | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote: 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. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote: 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. By that logic there should be 0 balance patches, period. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On December 23 2015 15:39 plogamer wrote: By that logic there should be 0 balance patches, period. Weather or not you agree with him in theory, what he said is the way its done. If they game were balanced based on anything other than the tip top players, Terran would have been buffed huge amounts since 2012. Non Korean Terrans don't do well and have the lowest earnings. But since Terran units scale better with mechanics (apm, micro, multi-tasking, etc...), the highest skilled Terrans do very well. Terran as a race has under preformed since 2012, but the top level Terrans have not. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote: 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? | ||
|
CheddarToss
534 Posts
On December 22 2015 05:57 Zanzabarr wrote: Terrible change. Now Marauders hard hard counter both stalkers and adepts. Stim marauders will melt both units in a massive landslide of cost efficiency. Completely unusable unit in PvT with that change. Actually now Marauders counter all gateway units. Not even Chargelots are effective against them when both units are on the field in larger numbers. So, for Protoss, it will be the same all over again: get T3 or die. | ||
| ||
