|
On January 23 2016 17:16 JackLondon wrote:
I wonder why PvZ no longer seems to be any point of concern for blizzard. At Dreamhack, we see zerg dominance again and also Protoss is underrepresented in Dia to GM league with really bad statistics in PvZ ("Zerg outnumber Protoss by 4.7% in GM, 41.2% in Masters, 64.1% in Diamond, 50.7% in Platinum, 15.1% in Gold and Protoss outnumber Zerg by 25.6% in Silver and 65.9% in Bronze.")
I also wonder, why parasite bomb is needed at all. Zerg already got infestor vs air... Is it just to avoid muta vs muta? Or to deal with protoss air compositions? If so, I really cannot understand why Protoss never got any effective AOE vs air. High templars are too slow to deal with harassment and also lost a lot of power vs mutas since mutas can regain health. Terras got liberator, zerg infestor AND Viper. I think if Protoss gets crowd control vs mutas, a lot of the PvZ problems will be solved. If you see a spire as Protoss, you kind of have to go for 2 stargates to get pheonixes out. But if the zerg switches to corrupters or vipers, you have a very small ground army and dead weight pheonixes. Also, because of the lack of an effective anti air AOE unit vs zerg, the unit composition changes hit Protoss so hard in the mid- and lategame.
Do not get me wrong, I do not want to flame vs zerg, but I play a lot of random in LOTV and that is just what I see as the main Problem for PvZ. The proposed changes for toss (my former main race) are actually good. On the other side, anyone who watched Uthermal yesterday should have get a great idea how to deal with photon overcharge (cyclones).
I
This is because there are more high level Zerg players still playing the game. That statistic is worthless for showing balance.
Also, if you opened nexus do an adept attack and then go into twilight archon / charge, Zerg is not gona reach spire and if they do it won't help them. So no you don't have to go double starport.
|
i think the overcharge would be to weak vs zerg in the early game and roach ravanger allin and the adept nerf, i dont know, terrans do better and better against it.
|
Can anyone explain why Blizzard would even risk the Adept damage nerf not doing enough because of possible rushed +1 weapons? Why not just try -2 damage right off the bat to play it freaking safe?
If this wasn't the first patch in two and a half months, I'd be less concerned.
|
On January 24 2016 06:37 pure.Wasted wrote:
Can anyone explain why Blizzard would even risk the Adept damage nerf not doing enough because of possible rushed +1 weapons? Why not just try -2 damage right off the bat to play it freaking safe?
If this wasn't the first patch in two and a half months, I'd be less concerned.
because the timing will be delayed or less strong if you get a forge and research +1 attack with it. And if you get it for 'normal' play and don't try to rush it out for a warp prism attack terran will have combatshield out already and marines won't be 2shot anyway.
|
On January 24 2016 06:47 dNa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:37 pure.Wasted wrote:
Can anyone explain why Blizzard would even risk the Adept damage nerf not doing enough because of possible rushed +1 weapons? Why not just try -2 damage right off the bat to play it freaking safe?
If this wasn't the first patch in two and a half months, I'd be less concerned. because the timing will be delayed or less strong if you get a forge and research +1 attack with it. And if you get it for 'normal' play and don't try to rush it out for a warp prism attack terran will have combatshield out already and marines won't be 2shot anyway.
Yes obviously the timing won't be as strong if you get Forge for +1, but the question is HOW MUCH not as strong will it be?
Nerfing damage by -2 wouldn't have changed a single other relationship that I can think of. Why not play it safe and avoid having to renerf Adepts two weeks later after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? There's literally no risk unless you consider the (highly unlikely) possibility of completely killing aggressive Adept openings a very bad thing. And even if it did, there's still MSC, Stalkers, Oracles... but it wouldn't...
|
Remove the fu**ing heroic unit, the msc, and introduce something like the dragoon or any of the single player units. Enough of it!!!
|
I think they're playing cautious due to the PO change coupled with the adept change. I keep beating this drum, but this is why they should have patched PO in the first week of January like said they would. Because then we would have some high level games to draw conclusions from rather than having to hit on two fronts in one patch. And if the PO change caused issues in PvZ then they could have done something in a secondary patch the last week of January or at least be talking about potential changes by now if it did cause problems before too much damage was done to tournament season.
|
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd?
Last time I checked PvT was still 50/50.
I wish more people would align their perception with reality. Everyone said how imbalanced Protoss was versus Terran in December, then the stats came out, and Terran was winning 52% of the time, 1% more than in November. I can't wait for the January stats.
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
Protoss won more in HOTS versus Terran than right now. So whatever your perception is, the anecdotal evidence (logical fallacy btw) you think is real, it is completely wrong.
It is even 50/50 in the GSL right now despite Seeds comments and win over Bomber.
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Yes obviously the timing won't be as strong if you get Forge for +1, but the question is HOW MUCH not as strong will it be?
Once again, those logical fallacies get you up in a bind. If you want to prove that the -1 damage to light units won't be enough, then prove it. The burden of proof is always on you when you make a claim.
|
Whatever, as long as warpgate exists the game will always have issues. That single mechanic ruins everything we are talking about that involves protoss. All issues in the game involving protoss can come back down to that mechanic existing. Their refusal to examine removing that mechanic from the game, or making it a more limited mechanic(warp in to a nexus location for example) means that Gateway units will always need to be weak, meaning that defensive aspects like photon overcharge or MSC always have to be in the game.
|
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? Last time I checked PvT was still 50/50. I wish more people would align their perception with reality. Everyone said how imbalanced Protoss was versus Terran in December, then the stats came out, and Terran was winning 52% of the time, 1% more than in November. I can't wait for the January stats. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/Protoss won more in HOTS versus Terran than right now. So whatever your perception is, the anecdotal evidence (logical fallacy btw) you think is real, it is completely wrong. It is even 50/50 in the GSL right now despite Seeds comments and win over Bomber.
Out of curiosity I checked Dreamhack, here are the results:
Playoffs
P T
18 15
(Playoffs sans uThermal series)
P T
14 7)
Group Stage 2
P T
18 22
GS 1
P T
16 8
All together
P T
52 45
PvT ~54%
I calculated all that in my head, so I might have made mistakes.
|
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
It is even 50/50 in the GSL right now despite Seeds comments and win over Bomber.
It's 50/50 after 2 series, not sure this is worth mentioning for balance. I mean, PvT is 100/0 in the SSL main event.
|
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Once again, those logical fallacies get you up in a bind.
You're committing an argumentum ad logicam fallacy.
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
The burden of proof is always on you when you make a claim.
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
|
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? Last time I checked PvT was still 50/50. I wish more people would align their perception with reality. Everyone said how imbalanced Protoss was versus Terran in December, then the stats came out, and Terran was winning 52% of the time, 1% more than in November. I can't wait for the January stats. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/Protoss won more in HOTS versus Terran than right now. So whatever your perception is, the anecdotal evidence (logical fallacy btw) you think is real, it is completely wrong. It is even 50/50 in the GSL right now despite Seeds comments and win over Bomber.
That's great, except I'm a lot more concerned with the state of the game than I am with balance numbers. The fact that Seed vs Bomber, or Classic vs aLive, is able to happen the way it did is wrong even if Terran is winning 90% vs Protoss's 10%. It will never not be wrong.
As for why Patience only did one Adept build vs TY, you'll have to ask him. It certainly worked out well for him when he did.
Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Yes obviously the timing won't be as strong if you get Forge for +1, but the question is HOW MUCH not as strong will it be?
Once again, those logical fallacies get you up in a bind. If you want to prove that the -1 damage to light units won't be enough, then prove it. The burden of proof is always on you when you make a claim.
I struggle to believe that you are for real.
Burden of proof applies if someone is trying to prove something. I am not trying to prove anything. I am WORRIED.
IF -1 damage turns out not to be enough, then based on Blizzard's patching times in the recent past, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 2 MONTH WAIT. I do not understand the point of risking another 2 month wait with a severely messed up game.
I don't know that -1 damage is or is not enough. I do know that if Blizz had tested -2 on the PTR and found it to be too much of a nerf, scaling down to -1 would have been a lot safer with minimal testing than scaling up to -2 if it turns out -1 isn't enough.
It's too bad that failing reading comprehension isn't a logical fallacy. If it were, your appeals to logical fallacies would be deliciously ironic. Instead they're just annoying.
|
On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? Last time I checked PvT was still 50/50. I wish more people would align their perception with reality. Everyone said how imbalanced Protoss was versus Terran in December, then the stats came out, and Terran was winning 52% of the time, 1% more than in November. I can't wait for the January stats.
Aligulac also said that blink era TvP was balanced. Your reality only exists on paper, not in the real world.
|
On January 24 2016 08:05 Bohemond wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
You know what, that's an excellent point. For example, I could say that in a balanced game protoss players should win a lot more than terran players cause they're smarter and better at the game. Prove it? naaah man, it's not on me to prove it. Just accept what I'm saying.
|
On January 24 2016 08:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 08:05 Bohemond wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
You know what, that's an excellent point. For example, I could say that in a balanced game protoss players should win a lot more than terran players cause they're smarter and better at the game. Prove it? naaah man, it's not on me to prove it. Just accept what I'm saying.
I know this is pretty fair off the rails. But whatever.
It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it. Nothing, as far as humans know at the moment, is 'provable.' (Did you spot the irony there?) Everything requires as a basis that some unprovable assumptions are made - even arithmetic. Thus, when two people argue, if one person constantly asks for everything the other person claims to be proven, the debate will never progress.
|
On January 24 2016 08:24 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 08:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 24 2016 08:05 Bohemond wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
You know what, that's an excellent point. For example, I could say that in a balanced game protoss players should win a lot more than terran players cause they're smarter and better at the game. Prove it? naaah man, it's not on me to prove it. Just accept what I'm saying. I know this is pretty fair off the rails. But whatever. It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it. Nothing, as far as humans know at the moment, is 'provable.' (Did you spot the irony there?) Everything requires as a basis that some unprovable assumptions are made - even arithmetic. Thus, when two people argue, if one person constantly asks for everything the other person claims to be proven, the debate will never progress.
Except the two people, if they're rational and honest, are supposed to argue based on the same logic and the same assumptions. As such, they are supposed to recognize the same things as proof and/or provable. It's your position that creates the stagnation.
|
On January 24 2016 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 08:24 Bohemond wrote:On January 24 2016 08:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 24 2016 08:05 Bohemond wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
You know what, that's an excellent point. For example, I could say that in a balanced game protoss players should win a lot more than terran players cause they're smarter and better at the game. Prove it? naaah man, it's not on me to prove it. Just accept what I'm saying. I know this is pretty fair off the rails. But whatever. It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it. Nothing, as far as humans know at the moment, is 'provable.' (Did you spot the irony there?) Everything requires as a basis that some unprovable assumptions are made - even arithmetic. Thus, when two people argue, if one person constantly asks for everything the other person claims to be proven, the debate will never progress. Except the two people, if they're rational and honest, are supposed to argue based on the same logic and the same assumptions. As such, they are supposed to recognize the same things as proof and/or provable. It's your position that creates the stagnation.
I mean, if you call endless fallacious appeals to logical fallacies and misuse of the concept of burden of proof, along with a healthy mix of uncalled for insults, a rational and honest argument. Then. Yeah. Sure.
Also, I didn't put forth a position or create stagnation. I just made an observation. The stagnation was here long before I arrived.
|
On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 07:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? Last time I checked PvT was still 50/50. I wish more people would align their perception with reality. Everyone said how imbalanced Protoss was versus Terran in December, then the stats came out, and Terran was winning 52% of the time, 1% more than in November. I can't wait for the January stats. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/Protoss won more in HOTS versus Terran than right now. So whatever your perception is, the anecdotal evidence (logical fallacy btw) you think is real, it is completely wrong. It is even 50/50 in the GSL right now despite Seeds comments and win over Bomber. That's great, except I'm a lot more concerned with the state of the game than I am with balance numbers. The fact that Seed vs Bomber, or Classic vs aLive, is able to happen the way it did is wrong even if Terran is winning 90% vs Protoss's 10%. It will never not be wrong. As for why Patience only did one Adept build vs TY, you'll have to ask him. It certainly worked out well for him when he did. Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Yes obviously the timing won't be as strong if you get Forge for +1, but the question is HOW MUCH not as strong will it be?
Once again, those logical fallacies get you up in a bind. If you want to prove that the -1 damage to light units won't be enough, then prove it. The burden of proof is always on you when you make a claim. I struggle to believe that you are for real. Burden of proof applies if someone is trying to prove something. I am not trying to prove anything. I am WORRIED. IF -1 damage turns out not to be enough, then based on Blizzard's patching times in the recent past, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 2 MONTH WAIT. I do not understand the point of risking another 2 month wait with a severely messed up game. I don't know that -1 damage is or is not enough. I do know that if Blizz had tested -2 on the PTR and found it to be too much of a nerf, scaling down to -1 would have been a lot safer with minimal testing than scaling up to -2 if it turns out -1 isn't enough. It's too bad that failing reading comprehension isn't a logical fallacy. If it were, your appeals to logical fallacies would be deliciously ironic. Instead they're just annoying.
And are you worried about Liberators ruining the game? Because they are. They allow for such low skill, high damage harass, that from Protoss perspective the unit is just terrible. You at least have to micro Adepts, Liberators are just a shift-click affair. But thanks to ridiculous range and damage, you either have to have half a dozen blink stalkers or a phoenix out just to stop 1 Liberator from blocking your mineral line or killing a ton of probes in 2 seconds. So much damage for such a low APM and resource cost.
|
On January 24 2016 08:36 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:On January 24 2016 08:24 Bohemond wrote:On January 24 2016 08:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 24 2016 08:05 Bohemond wrote:
You've yet to provide any proof of this claim. Where's your proof that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim? Can you prove it?
You know what, that's an excellent point. For example, I could say that in a balanced game protoss players should win a lot more than terran players cause they're smarter and better at the game. Prove it? naaah man, it's not on me to prove it. Just accept what I'm saying. I know this is pretty fair off the rails. But whatever. It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it. Nothing, as far as humans know at the moment, is 'provable.' (Did you spot the irony there?) Everything requires as a basis that some unprovable assumptions are made - even arithmetic. Thus, when two people argue, if one person constantly asks for everything the other person claims to be proven, the debate will never progress. Except the two people, if they're rational and honest, are supposed to argue based on the same logic and the same assumptions. As such, they are supposed to recognize the same things as proof and/or provable. It's your position that creates the stagnation. I mean, if you call endless fallacious appeals to logical fallacies and misuse of the concept of burden of proof, along with a healthy mix of uncalled for insults, a rational and honest argument. Then. Yeah. Sure. Also, I didn't put forth a position or create stagnation. I just made an observation. The stagnation was here long before I arrived.
Then criticize the arguments that he put forward. If you believe that they're fallacious, you can totally do that. What you can't do is argue that evidence doesn't matter to the credibility of your argument, and as such you don't need to put it forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
