|
On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +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 %.
There is big difference between 45 and 50. TvZ during broodlord infestor era was about 43-45%, current TvP is at 50%.
On other hand PvZ is below 44% in November/december (somehow it's not shifting to 50%)
|
On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They basically divided playerbase into 2 groups now with new WCS system.
So i assume only logical step now is to have game balanced also for non Koreans.
Otherwise what is the point of this new system.
|
On December 23 2015 16:09 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Like it is for terran currently. Get liberators or die
|
On December 23 2015 17:16 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +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. They basically divided playerbase into 2 groups now with new WCS system. So i assume only logical step now is to have game balanced also for non Koreans. Otherwise what is the point of this new system.
This is a good point. We know that for 5 years now Terran has had a terrible time in the foreigner scene but done well in the Korean one. So with no Korean Terrans at Circuit events will the foreigner scene become a Z/P affair? Will it be balanced around Z/P foreigner level and risk making Korea a Terran heaven? Will they finally make mech viable so a less micro intensive stile can compete? Interesting.
|
On December 23 2015 19:46 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 17:16 keglu 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. They basically divided playerbase into 2 groups now with new WCS system. So i assume only logical step now is to have game balanced also for non Koreans. Otherwise what is the point of this new system. This is a good point. We know that for 5 years now Terran has had a terrible time in the foreigner scene but done well in the Korean one. So with no Korean Terrans at Circuit events will the foreigner scene become a Z/P affair? Will it be balanced around Z/P foreigner level and risk making Korea a Terran heaven? Will they finally make mech viable so a less micro intensive stile can compete? Interesting.
i don't think it is true for Terran since HOTS.
At least for european scene i can't decide which group was doing best
Bunny/Dayshi/uThermal/Marinelord
Snute/Nerchio/Firecake/Serral/
Lilbow/Showtime/Mana/Pitdrogo
I think currently Protoss is more problematic. Koreans doing well but overall PvZ winrates seem bad.
|
On December 23 2015 17:31 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 16:09 CheddarToss wrote: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. Like it is for terran currently. Get liberators or die
I'm sorry but that's not an answer. If terran could already be saved by going T3, then it having also the best T2-T1 will obviously be problematic for the game, as protoss will be forced to try and survive until T3 and reach a state in which... terran is saved again. That's not how it's supposed to work.
|
This change is unnecessary. The problem with adepts in PvT is not the lack of damage of Terran units against them or the lack of a hard counter (as Marauders are with this change) but the mobility granted by Psionic Transfer and Warp Prisms.
A better change imo would be this:
Psionic Transfer
Projects an invulnerable psionic image that cannot move and cannot attack. While Psionic Transfer is active the adept gains a movement speed bonus and may attack and move through units. After 7 seconds, the adept teleports back to the location of its psionic image. Psionic Transfer may be canceled at any time, and the adept will immediately teleport back to the location of the psionic image.
Cooldown: 11s
This ability draws a bit of inspiration from Ekko's ultimate in Legue of Legends (skip to 0:57 to see it in action).
So, with this change, you still have a mobility advantage when using Psionic Transfer which can be used for harassment. For example, during worker harassment psionic transfer gives a group of adepts an option to escape the defending army and hunt down workers.
However, your opponent will always know where a group of Adepts will end up (since the psionic image is a clear visible indicator). This makes it easier for a defending player to position units for defense. For example, if a group of adepts uses psionic transfer for worker harassment, the defending player would be able to move the attacked workers away while positioning the army at the location of the psionic images.
|
Actually Turb0Sw4g that could be very interesting, though it's also pretty cool now.
I honestly don't know why David Kim thinks changing Adept to armoured ONLY affects PvT, of course it doesn't...
|
1138 Posts
Should've been nerfed much faster than this.
|
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.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
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.
how it change roach-adept interaction?
|
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?
|
On December 23 2015 21:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 17:31 Charoisaur wrote:On December 23 2015 16:09 CheddarToss wrote: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. Like it is for terran currently. Get liberators or die I'm sorry but that's not an answer. If terran could already be saved by going T3, then it having also the best T2-T1 will obviously be problematic for the game, as protoss will be forced to try and survive until T3 and reach a state in which... terran is saved again. That's not how it's supposed to work.
i don't think that with the marauder nerf and charge buff terran t1/t2 would be superior to protoss t1/t2 even with the adept nerf.
|
On December 24 2015 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 21:46 Nebuchad wrote:On December 23 2015 17:31 Charoisaur wrote:On December 23 2015 16:09 CheddarToss wrote: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. Like it is for terran currently. Get liberators or die I'm sorry but that's not an answer. If terran could already be saved by going T3, then it having also the best T2-T1 will obviously be problematic for the game, as protoss will be forced to try and survive until T3 and reach a state in which... terran is saved again. That's not how it's supposed to work. i don't think that with the marauder nerf and charge buff terran t1/t2 would be superior to protoss t1/t2 even with the adept nerf.
Well we'll have to see on the test map, I don't know, you're very possibly right. But that's different from what you said earlier =p
|
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.
|
On December 23 2015 23:45 i_am_Nite wrote:Show nested quote +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. how it change roach-adept interaction?
My bad, I am a little bit sleepy  . No additional interaction regarding roaches.
|
This way they also don't overlap as much with zealots.
disruptors overlap too much with zealots though.
|
On December 24 2015 00:25 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Marauders and roaches fit greatly at the definition of "pure amove units that is cost-effective against almost all protoss ground units".
Adepts are only really good against light units and they are more interesting because of the shade ability imo.
|
I think other options would have been more fun, like being able to EMP the Adept or the shade to cancel the ability. Perhaps changing the Cyclone build time, cost and statistics to make it more efficient against light armored ground units. Maybe making the Prism ranged pickup an upgrade at Support Bay, I don't know. Theo posted something along those lines recently and I really liked it.
I personally feel that the Adept isn't too much of a problem as much as the map pool right now currently really emphasizes drop play with large mains and pocket naturals. I don't think MMM needs to be more efficient than it already is against Protoss ground.
|
On December 24 2015 00:38 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
