Hey everyone. Most of this week’s update concerns the upcoming Balance Test Map, however we’d also like to briefly discuss feedback in Korea and our recent discussions about Siege Tanks.
KR Feedback on Protoss
Recently, we’ve definitely seen the feedback on Protoss strength both from Korean Pros and our Korean community as a major point of discussion, especially after some comments made by professional Protoss players. In response to this very notion, we’ve been preparing to test changes for Protoss and have been glad to see that you guys agree with the direction we’ve been considering over the past few weeks. We also noticed numerous people in the Korean community pointing out how Protoss may not be as OP as others have made it out to be due to statistics. While this may or may not be true, we definitely appreciate that there are people trying hard to see it from the big picture instead of just jumping on the band wagon. We normally don’t focus a feedback to a specific region like this, but because of how big the consensus was in this area last week in Korea, we wanted to address this concern.
With that said, we will be looking to make changes to Protoss very soon on the two fronts we’ve been discussing over the past few weeks. We believe these nerfs to the Adept and Photon Overcharge will improve both Protoss non-mirror matchups, but have the greatest impact in TvP, where Protoss is currently more problematic. Please keep in mind that even after the balance update goes live, we’ll definitely be keeping a close eye on the state of the game in case further changes are needed.
Also, we have noticed that information regarding balance or the dev team's thoughts aren't getting spread around as well in Korea compared to other regions, and we will definitely be discussing ways to improve this.
Next Balance Update Schedule
We are aiming to get the Balance Test Map released today, and hope to aggressively test out the changes for a potential balance patch to the live game next week on January 28th (PST). This date aims to allow enough time to aggressively test, while also avoiding interrupting DreamHack and next week’s matches in Korea. On that note, we heard your feedback regarding letting players know better when a Balance Test Map testing is going on. The best feedback we heard on this front was to possibly have the StarCraft 2 landing screen have a background with details about the Balance Test Map. It could also include details of a chat channel for players to join to organize games depending on race and skill level, and we’re looking to add something like this to help facilitate testing.
The plan is to test these changes and then make a call on which specific ones will be good for the game:
Photon Overcharge: Energy cost increased from 25 to 50 Duration increased from 15 to 20 sec Weapon period decreased from 1.25 to 1 Adept Damage decreased from 10 (+13 light) to 10 (+12 light) Viper Parasitic bomb damage decreased from 90 to 60 Spore Crawler Damage decreased from 15 (+15 bio) to 15 (+5 bio)
Let’s keep the discussions and playtesting focused on these specific changes so that we can together make a call on which changes can go into the game. Let’s go more into each of the topics so that we can keep the discussions more focused.
Photon Overcharge
Due to the overall strength of Protoss recently, we feel that this is a solid change. Other races will be able to go on the offense more against Protoss, meaning we can tackle the main issue we see of Protoss just leaving 1 Mothership Core on defense while safely going on the offense with units such as Adepts or Warp Prisms in the earlier stages of the game. We’ve discussed this one many times over the last few weeks, so we probably don’t need to go too much more into detail, but please note that the nerf to this ability is quite big and we would love to hear your thoughts on the specific numbers after you have played on the Balance Test Map.
Adept Damage
We agree with majority of you that TvP is the most problematic matchup by far right now, so we believe this extra nerf on top of the Overcharge nerf is needed. It’s a big change against Terran due to the relationship changes with Marines and SCVs. Let’s focus on testing this change in mind with the big changes to Photon Overcharge to make sure that it’s in fact good to do both changes at the same time.
Viper Parasitic Bomb
The biggest issue as we’ve discussed before with this ability is that it prevents many of the air based compositions from coming into play. We just need to make sure that this nerf is not too big to the point that we see overwhelming numbers of air units all of a sudden. Let’s focus the playtesting and discussions around making sure that this doesn’t happen.
Spore Crawler Damage
This is probably the safest change of the bunch since it only affects the ZvZ mirror matchup. Still, we’ve heard your feedback that this could bring back a Mutalisk dominated metagame, but we wonder if the Parasitic Bomb changes will make enough of a difference to strike a balance between the two different tech paths. Also, keep in mind that this change is pretty easy to tune even after the patch goes out, so if we need to make another adjustment after next week, we can easily do that as well.
Siege Tank
Thank you for the productive discussions over the past week about Siege Tanks. Here are our thoughts:
If TvZ is in an even state, we completely agree that Siege Tank should be buffed if they lose the ability to be picked up by Medivacs. At the same time, we are getting some feedback from high level players in Korea that Zerg is struggling vs. Terran in the matchup. This may mean that we would want to test changes to the Siege Tank one at a time. Overall, we don’t feel that both TvZ and TvT are at a point where we need to patch something ASAP. Because we are sticking to the most needed changes only for the balance update that’s coming very soon, we can continue discussing this topic going forward, but don’t need to focus on it this week.
Overall, let’s try to first examine the exact state of TvT and ZvT before we make a call on what changes needs to be tested for the Siege Tank. We believe this is the main reason why opinions were so split on this area.
Thanks for your continued feedback. Please login and play the Balance Test Map as we’d love to hear your feedback on the changes after you’ve played a few games to try things out. Thanks!
I don't understand the spore nerf. I also don't get what they mean by
Still, we’ve heard your feedback that this could bring back a Mutalisk dominated metagame, but we wonder if the Parasitic Bomb changes will make enough of a difference to strike a balance between the two different tech paths.
Like, if you nerf the other response to mutas that's somehow gonna help make the meta not muta dominated?
On January 23 2016 03:32 brickrd wrote: spore nerf makes 0 sense... you can already still go muta into transition in zvz on larger maps...
Even 60dmg Parabomb is good enough to justify the nerf for the spore.
The Protoss nerf will help terran and Protoss will again go for late games. Good to see that back and see, how it works out. When late terran is really stronger (what I think it is) then Protoss (who does not skip upgrades for a prism adept attack), I could see a buff to templar (Storm cast range +1?). I dont think Blizzard wants to make the coloss viable ever again and never wants to see viking coloss fights. Even the amulet could have its comeback, when they see that Protoss has Problems of fighting and defending in later stages.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Adept now does 22 damage against light units per shot. That means, you need instead of 2 shots, 3 shots to kill SCVs and Marines. Thats quite a nerf. The problem is still the prism.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Well, they still 2-shot the workers of 2 races. They also don't 2-shot marines anymore.
Ya know what we need so bad, is for Photon Overcharge to be removed from the game. So badly. I play Protoss and I hate it, I despise, have since HOTS. It just drains the skill out of the early game.
It used to take real skill to hold early attacks, used to have to build units and position them properly to defend drops. It used to be fun to defend early timings. Now, no one can attack Protoss save some gimmicky aggression via early Overlord Drops, Oracles and Adepts or Widow Mines and Liberators.
PO and the MSC just need to go. And then the gimmicky aggression can be removed too! We can get Widow Mine drops out of the game too.
We just need to talk about that more, much more, maybe Blizzard will listen.
Can't wait to see what happens to Protoss winrates if they roll this out as is. I wonder if they'll go below 0%?
PB still stacks and they're still just in the thinking and planning stage of removing sieged pickups. I guess they've been loving what they see in TvT?
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT
I wonder if that's true and there isn't a silent majority not hating tankivacs.
It's doom drop madness everyone game and no mech. Does it even matter what the majority think? The majority is stupid anyway. Nearly half the people in my country think that the earth is under 6000 years old. Probably more than half think that America entered WW2 in part to stop the holocaust (the truth of the holocaust came out after the war ended during the Nuremberg trials) and the 'we' won the war for the rest of the world.
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Nerf CB's range or make them Armored and Tanks will be effective against Ravagers.
Disregarding balance, adepts are just not fun to play against. Way too many adepts even in the later stages of the game. Zealots need some love. Current tankivacs are arguably not fun to play against, either.
Buff sieged tanks damage. If necessary, nerf by increasing attack cooldown.
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Nerf CB's range or make them Armored and Tanks will be effective against Ravagers.
Then you can talk about getting rid of Tankivacs.
Making tanks counter ravagers could be problematic if LBM really won´t be viable tactic against terran.
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Nerf CB's range or make them Armored and Tanks will be effective against Ravagers.
Then you can talk about getting rid of Tankivacs.
Maybe severely lower the amount of time it takes for a tank to unsiege?
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Sure, But if the Tank was cheaper you could have more or replace them more easily.
There are 10 000 ways to buff the tank and they decided on the worst one: mobility
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Nerf CB's range or make them Armored and Tanks will be effective against Ravagers.
Then you can talk about getting rid of Tankivacs.
to get Corrosive biles of they have to go into tank range. If the tank gets buffed it becomes more risky to get it off.
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT and only accept it because it feels needed in TvZ.
Drop the tankvac and buff the fucking tank dmg already. Jesus Christ, you are worst then Browder.
Corrosive bile is the problem. Even with slightly stronger Tanks the unarmored Ravagers can still go into Tank range, fire off their weapon, and 100% kill a tank.
Nerf CB's range or make them Armored and Tanks will be effective against Ravagers.
Then you can talk about getting rid of Tankivacs.
to get Corrosive biles of they have to go into tank range. If the tank gets buffed it becomes more risky to get it off.
Yeah, and it would also help Tanks/Mech vs Protoss, where they need 500% more buffs than vs Zerg.
On January 23 2016 03:44 Bohemond wrote: Well this is logical and well thought out.
Can't wait to see what happens to Protoss winrates if they roll this out as is. I wonder if they'll go below 0%?
Protoss 100% relies on the strength of Adepts and PO to be competitive.
Once those crutches are gone the race will go into free-fall.
This has been my viewpoint since ~August.
Not to put you down or anything because we agree 100%, but, like, isn't that obvious? I mean, PO is used nearly every game, so is the Adept. It'd be like a bunker nerf or Marine nerf without something thrown in to compensate...
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT
I wonder if that's true and there isn't a silent majority not hating tankivacs.
It's THE feedback from Korea. They want mech TvT.
Journey played mech in TvT in Code A today. The reason he lost wasn't tankivacs, it was liberators.
Because he didn't move out in fear of being out position by tankvacs and needed not just vikings but medivacs of his own. This allowed the bio player to go yolo on Liberator and win. They might as well have been BCs.
The Tankvac is fucking cancer cancer for Terran
EDIT:
It's the new colossus. Most people hate it but rationalize it that "it's needed".
On January 23 2016 03:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: Opinions are not split. Most Terran players hate tankvac for TvT
I wonder if that's true and there isn't a silent majority not hating tankivacs.
It's THE feedback from Korea. They want mech TvT.
Journey played mech in TvT in Code A today. The reason he lost wasn't tankivacs, it was liberators.
Because he didn't move out in fear of being out position by tankvacs and needed not just vikings but medivacs of his own. This allowed the bio player to go yolo on Liberator and win. They might as well have been BCs.
The Tankvac is fucking cancer cancer for Terran
He made medivacs for hellbat drops. His opponent didn't even make additional medivacs. He had no reason to be scared of tank drops later on in the game. I'm not even sure how good mech would be with stronger tanks but no tankivacs in TvT atm. I think there'd still be a lot of openings for bio players to exploit.
Theres was actually a really good reddist post that talked about how a +6 damage buff worked on tanks, where they took 1 shot less to kill most of the toss/zerg units but still took the same amount of shots to kill terran units, it even took +3 damage into consideration so even then they wouldn't 1 shot marines.
They need to that, is like the adept nerf, not a super big change but very well thought out.
On January 23 2016 03:44 Bohemond wrote: Well this is logical and well thought out.
Can't wait to see what happens to Protoss winrates if they roll this out as is. I wonder if they'll go below 0%?
Protoss 100% relies on the strength of Adepts and PO to be competitive.
Once those crutches are gone the race will go into free-fall.
This has been my viewpoint since ~August.
Not to put you down or anything because we agree 100%, but, like, isn't that obvious? I mean, PO is used nearly every game, so is the Adept. It'd be like a bunker nerf or Marine nerf without something thrown in to compensate...
How can anyone not notice...?
Everyone noticed. Not everyone cares.
I expect protoss to become the worst race but I don't know that it will be the case. It's not like they went for one of the absurd nerfs like making adepts armored or something.
Also, if terrans calm down for a second maybe we'll be able to do something about that 42% winrate for 4 months that is apparently "by far not the biggest problem", who knows.
On January 23 2016 03:32 brickrd wrote: spore nerf makes 0 sense... you can already still go muta into transition in zvz on larger maps...
Even 60dmg Parabomb is good enough to justify the nerf for the spore.
you go muta and transition out long before anyone is on hive. same way you play muta vs roach in hots. vipers are irrelevant. the fact that you can't stay on mass muta when your opponent is on hive tech is a good thing, not bad.
the adept change will balance early, game but still allow adepts to be good in the mid game. I think the shade ability needs to be an upgrade or at least make it targetable like hallucination
On January 23 2016 03:39 Clonester wrote: Adept now does 22 damage against light units per shot. That means, you need instead of 2 shots, 3 shots to kill SCVs and Marines. Thats quite a nerf. The problem is still the prism.
Until you get +1 ground, then the unit relationships are all the same as on live.
Can someone explain why the hell they nerf the spore crawler? Is it because they want to see more muta play? One of the most retarded reason i've ever heard. Muta ZvZ is still damn strong now, david kim pls.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
We'll see, adepts not 2-shotting marines and workers could become a huge deal in TvP. Of course, it doesn't do anything to the strength of adepts against Zerg. But then, Zerg has a lot of ways to hurt Protoss, especially with an overcharge nerf.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
On January 23 2016 03:44 Bohemond wrote: Well this is logical and well thought out.
Can't wait to see what happens to Protoss winrates if they roll this out as is. I wonder if they'll go below 0%?
Protoss 100% relies on the strength of Adepts and PO to be competitive.
Once those crutches are gone the race will go into free-fall.
This has been my viewpoint since ~August.
The Adept nerf might be a blessing in disguise, if Protoss win rates fall noticeably after this the balance team might be more to apt to start discussing possible buffs to the old school GW units, Stalkers could definitely use some kind of a research passive that gives them viability going into the late game and Zealots are totally overshadowed by Adepts.
On January 23 2016 03:44 BronzeKnee wrote: Ya know what we need so bad, is for Photon Overcharge to be removed from the game. So badly. I play Protoss and I hate it, I despise, have since HOTS. It just drains the skill out of the early game.
It used to take real skill to hold early attacks, used to have to build units and position them properly to defend drops. It used to be fun to defend early timings. Now, no one can attack Protoss save some gimmicky aggression via early Overlord Drops, Oracles and Adepts or Widow Mines and Liberators.
PO and the MSC just need to go. And then the gimmicky aggression can be removed too! We can get Widow Mine drops out of the game too.
We just need to talk about that more, much more, maybe Blizzard will listen.
Maybe I'm just dreaming...
Same here regarding to mech.
Flying tanks have the least amount of impact on that matchup IMO.
I'm talking about the Tank buff. They are only considering it as a compensate for the loss of Medivac-Tank compo instead of actually acknowledging that this unit is so weak. As if the tank is completely fine to have 0 use in that match up.
On January 23 2016 04:49 Leviance wrote: Rename ZvZ to MvM!
Hadn't they already nerfed spore damage vs bio before the game came out? PB is now also no real option vs muta flocks anymore with only 60 dmg.
I mean you realize it did 90 before? If you launch 3 PB's it's going to kill the muta's just like before (Mutas have 120 health right?). Might require 1 extra viper instead of 2 (due to health regen)
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
Nobody is making many marau nowadays anyway
Further displaying that this is the way to go. Getting a buff to "the way to go" is likely to improve things.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
Marauders didn't die to adepts, but they couldn't stop them from killing workers, so we didn't really see lots of them built. This change doesn't change that existing relationship or existing builds with regard to marauders, really. Armored adept would have changed them drastically.
On January 23 2016 04:51 DarkLordOlli wrote: Stop double nerfing things. Learn your lesson already.
If this complaint is directed at PvT, they should have patched in the PO change the first week of January. They can't afford to wait and risk repeating the first half of 2014 again, especially with only 2 GSLs/SSLs a year.
On January 23 2016 03:44 Bohemond wrote: Well this is logical and well thought out.
Can't wait to see what happens to Protoss winrates if they roll this out as is. I wonder if they'll go below 0%?
Protoss 100% relies on the strength of Adepts and PO to be competitive.
Once those crutches are gone the race will go into free-fall.
This has been my viewpoint since ~August.
Not to put you down or anything because we agree 100%, but, like, isn't that obvious? I mean, PO is used nearly every game, so is the Adept. It'd be like a bunker nerf or Marine nerf without something thrown in to compensate...
How can anyone not notice...?
Judging by the patch... no, it's not obvious.
They look at it like the game is imbalanced so fix Protoss.
It's always been my view that Protoss is actually super under powered in LotV and that the Adept is just masking that fact. Once they nerf it it won't just "balance" the game. Protoss will. Get. Rekt.
You can just feel how behind you are in the games you DONT open Adept. I'm crushing Masters Terrans with Adept cheese and struggling to beat Diamonds if I don't make Adepts.
On January 23 2016 05:01 MockHamill wrote: The adept nerf is not enough. A single attack upgrade negates the whole nerf.
Something more needs to go either 1) Make the shade an upgrade 2) Decrease hit points.
The nerf makes it take 2 hits to kill a Marine instead of 3 until the marine has combat shields. By the time Protoss has +1 weapons, Marines should have combat shields. Therefore even +1 weapons doesn't change Adept efficiency against marines.
Furthermore with Marines' short speed attack, any extra time alive that a Marine gets = more dps.
This will make them way stronger vs Adepts even though on the surface the actual damage reduction is minimal.
It's the same reason that a Colossus nerf of 20-30% has made them suck by 50% or so. You need 50% more to twice as many shots to kill units. The actual damage doesn't really matter.
On January 23 2016 05:05 DinoMight wrote: By the time Protoss has +1 weapons, Marines should have combat shields.
You could get combat shields before the strongest adept timings hit. It's not worth it because SCVs don't get combat shields and it doesn't kill or push back the adepts any faster. So you spend that gas on things that will help you kill the adepts faster over combat shields.
On January 23 2016 05:01 MockHamill wrote: The adept nerf is not enough. A single attack upgrade negates the whole nerf.
Something more needs to go either 1) Make the shade an upgrade 2) Decrease hit points.
The nerf makes it take 2 hits to kill a Marine instead of 3 until the marine has combat shields.
By the time Protoss has +1 weapons, Marines should have combat shields.
Therefore even +1 weapons doesn't change Adept efficiency against marines.
If they have combat shields right now they also take 3 hits either way (and with stim its back to two hits with +1). The +1 weapons does negate the nerf, but you can't have the +1 weapons for the prism/adept timing (I guess), so that specific strategy is nerfed.
On January 23 2016 03:36 Musicus wrote: Nerfing both spores and para bomb might make it muta only or blind counter again.
It's a good unit to watch at the pro scene... I personally like it.
I actually liked to play it, but I think people didn't like watching it that much. Vipers will still make it different to HotS though I guess, even with the para bomb nerf, so maybe it won't be as bad as I thought.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
Marauders didn't die to adepts, but they couldn't stop them from killing workers, so we didn't really see lots of them built. This change doesn't change that existing relationship or existing builds with regard to marauders, really. Armored adept would have changed them drastically.
Obviously not saying that marauders will be better against adepts (the armored adept would be a terrible change btw, like community-decision levels of bad). Saying that it makes the strategy that deals the best with adepts (a focus on marines and as few marauders as possible) much better.
Yay. Adepts get nerfed (with good reasons). Nothing to compensate. Protoss even get PO nerf on top (again with good reasons). Nothing else. Even worse winrate inbound in the weeks coming.
Also apparently a 42% PvZ is a seconday issue. Not a single word. No worry, it can wait...
On January 23 2016 05:18 PPN wrote: Yay. Adepts get nerfed (with good reasons). Nothing to compensate. Protoss even get PO nerf on top (again with good reasons). Nothing else. Even worse winrate inbound in the weeks coming.
Also apparently a 42% PvZ is a seconday issue. Not a single word. No worry, it can wait...
Soon protoss will have single digit winrates in both matchups...I guess SC2 will be unplayable for a month or two after the patch.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Adept now does 22 damage against light units per shot. That means, you need instead of 2 shots, 3 shots to kill SCVs and Marines. Thats quite a nerf. The problem is still the prism.
The problem is the shift providing perfect intel and making a single group of adepts require two armies capable of dealing with them.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
Marauders didn't die to adepts, but they couldn't stop them from killing workers, so we didn't really see lots of them built. This change doesn't change that existing relationship or existing builds with regard to marauders, really. Armored adept would have changed them drastically.
Saying that it makes the strategy that deals the best with adepts (a focus on marines and as few marauders as possible) much better.
I'm saying that's what people already do and this doesn't change that. Again, combat shields could be researched in time for a ton of adept timings, but terrans don't get it because scvs don't get combat shields. There isn't any 'saving gas' by not getting marauders to fight off adepts like you're claiming.
A heavy handed approach. Spore damage could be reduced by 5, not 10. With Fungal being a projectile there is a possibility of Muta wars making a return.
PB nerf does not change the relationship of Viper vs Air - it only delays it (as you need more energy/Vipers). This is the same story as with Carrier - with ability it is too strong, so they increased build time -> which means that P will die waiting for Carriers, but Carriers themselves are still strong. They could make it non-stackable, or make it so that units are not killed by PB alone, and left with 1 hp instead.
Adept nerf is long overdue, nut finally they are comming to their senses.
PO nerf is great, but I'm a bit worried how is P supposed to defend vs Zerg. I know Blizzard will never even think about reduction of build times on Gateway, even by 2-3 seconds per unit.
Very disappointing changes after all this time. Make adepts unable to move or attack while shading IMO. Also give Terran mech a better siege tank and/or anti air.
I would have liked to see an increase in cooldown time between adept shades. On the pylon overcharge front, I don't really like the increase in rate of fire, I would have preferred a slight range buff to make up for the massive decrease in positional zoning. I don't think a small range buff would hurt terran that much, and it would help pvp a lot. Right now gateway pressure with oracles is fairly strong, but if the number of overcharges available is halved oracles will be really annoying to deal with as it takes 2 pylons to cover a single mineral line given the current overcharge range.
I honestly think too that, while adept and PO needs a nerf, Protoss will need a buff to late game to compensate. I think it's good time to play around the colossus since it's no longer used at all at the moment, they can try to make it more interesting to play and more useful. Why not try other design than the actual one, such a linear attack?
On January 23 2016 03:44 RaFox17 wrote: This adept nerf will do nothing against zerg? Adepts are really stupid and strong against Z also :/
Adepts are only stupid and strong in ZvP if you still subscribe to the school of 'no banelings against Protoss'
Get past that mindset and they're not bad at all.
ZvT is the biggest problem and they're admitting feedback that it's favoring Terran but at the same time saying they don't want to do anything about it except nerf PB (liberator buff) and maybe not buff siege tank
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Yes. They no longer 2-shot workers, instead it takes 3. This means they're weaker on the harrassment side of things.
Is this really the main issue though? I always felt that it was how good they were in fight which was the bigger problem, by shading directly into the enemy army. I would have liked some kind nerf to the shade, something like adept can't attack for one second after they shade somewhere, or it consume a bit of shield like stimpack.
It means you can skip marauder much more against the early adept pressures, as the marines are killed much slower. The marines deal with the adepts much better with higher dps and lesser cost. Besides with less gas put into marauders you can tech way faster to liberators, tanks and other useful units, as opposed to the marauder that pretty much sucks against anything but stalkers right now.
Marauders didn't die to adepts, but they couldn't stop them from killing workers, so we didn't really see lots of them built. This change doesn't change that existing relationship or existing builds with regard to marauders, really. Armored adept would have changed them drastically.
Saying that it makes the strategy that deals the best with adepts (a focus on marines and as few marauders as possible) much better.
I'm saying that's what people already do and this doesn't change that. Again, combat shields could be researched in time for a ton of adept timings, but terrans don't get it because scvs don't get combat shields. There isn't any 'saving gas' by not getting marauders to fight off adepts like you're claiming.
As long as the number of marauders built is positive, it can be decreased by making marines stronger. That's just a fact, I don't know how you can argue against that. As long as the number of marauders is decreased, it allows gas to be put into something else.
The only way your argument is true is if zero marauders are built against adept rushes today, which is not the case.
PvT @ 47,86% ======> "Most problematic match-up" (DK) PvZ @ 41,92% ======> not a word.....
I'm not saying Adept and PO aren't absurdily stupid and should be nerfed accordingly. I'm saying that Protoss is obviously relying heavily on these two crunches (and yes, they are crunches) to stay in the game, and not even succeeding in PvZ to manage it to begin with. Yet, this "unproblematic" match-up is not being discussed at all by the devs.
You guys watched the games of the last 2 weeks in PvT. Usually the Protoss player wins the first 2 games with Adept agression, decides to change it abit in the 3rd game only to have it flop completely on its head, then he goes back to Adept WP play to secure the win in his round.
I predict that PvT will go into the mid 40-ish% and PvZ into the mid 30-ish%. Perhaps then DK and co. will deem it worthy of discussing potential buffs to the Protoss race; buffs which aren't in the forms of effin crunches and gimmicks.
On January 23 2016 05:47 Vanadiel wrote: I honestly think too that, while adept and PO needs a nerf, Protoss will need a buff to late game to compensate. I think it's good time to play around the colossus since it's no longer used at all at the moment, they can try to make it more interesting to play and more useful. Why not try other design than the actual one, such a linear attack?
That might made for some interesting micro interactions that don't involve spell casting. Careful with this kind of talk. Darth Kim might send someone to your house at night...
Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
It would make it super risky to commit, but still as good.
i do like the minus damage nerf. Ravagers and liberators still need some tunedowns but otherwise, ok.
edit: by the way this nerf is inspired by the bounty hunter and slardar nerfs in dota 2, and they worked wonderfully there as well. information is king.
It would make it super risky to commit, but still as good.
i do like the minus damage nerf. Ravagers and liberators still need some tunedowns but otherwise, ok.
edit: by the way this nerf is inspired by the bounty hunter and slardar nerfs in dota 2, and they worked wonderfully there as well. information is king.
This sounds kinda silly to me. Who would ever want to commit to teleporting to some place you can't see? And if you need a flying unit, obs or a revelation to use adepts, how is that any different from blink?
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
Now Widow Mines are often used as part of an army versus Zerg, which they work fine in honestly (as part of an army composition), though Siege Tanks were better. But then they also get used for drops where they are overpowered versus workers, particularly versus Protoss to the point where Protoss needed extra units giving detection (Oracle) and Photon Overcharge. Sure, Zerg could drop Banelings and Protoss could drop High Templars, but those drops don't come out nearly as early as Widow Mine drops.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game.
So along with WM, we remove stasis ward, Lurkers, and Vultures from Brood War?
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
How many terran in the world can consistently focus fire with a widow mine, again?
Great. While we're cutting WMs for being shit design, let's make sure we first remove roaches, Ultralisks, Corruptors, Lurkers, vipers, Zealots, adepts, dark Templar, archon, MSC, mothership, carrier, tempest, void ray, Colossus, Oracle, thor, Battlecruiser for being the same or worse.
Let's then not forget to make up a new reason for Zerg not to A+move 50 banes into bio.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game.
So along with WM, we remove stasis ward, Lurkers, and Vultures from Brood War?
This conversation has nothing to do with Brood War. That said, Spider Mines could be killed before they hit (even if you had no detection), and just because Brood War was a great game, doesn't mean certain things couldn't be improved upon.
But let's compare them to Lurkers, now that Lurkers are in the game. If you run into a single Lurker with your army while you are macroing, you'll get the signal that you army is under attack, and be able to react losing nothing.
When you get that signal versus a Widow Mine, you've already lost units.
The problem is burst damage, as it has always been with so many things in Starcraft. Razzia of Blizzsters so brilliantly illuminated that, that things like the Widow Mine compress time (reaction time) to the point where skill is diluted.
Now of course if Zerg masses Lurkers, you might have lost your army to Zerg burst, but that the cost and dedication to such a move is significant. Far more significant than the cost and dedication of a couple of Widow Mines.
The Widow Mine was intended to make Mech viable. It turned out to replace the SIege Tank and make Bio better. It needs to go.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
How many terran in the world can consistently focus fire with a widow mine, again?
Great. While we're cutting WMs for being shit design, let's make sure we first remove roaches, Ultralisks, Corruptors, Lurkers, vipers, Zealots, adepts, dark Templar, archon, MSC, mothership, carrier, tempest, void ray, Colossus, Oracle, thor, Battlecruiser for being the same or worse.
Let's then not forget to make up a new reason for Zerg not to A+move 50 banes into bio.
Solid plan.
Do you know what a logical fallacy is?
Instead of spouting non-sense and hyperbole, try actually discussing things, like why you think we should cut all those units since they are the "same or worse." Zealots are in no way akin to Widow Mines, so they aren't the same or worse in terms of game design.
Just seems like you are raging because you need the Widow Mine to kill Banes. And that is fine, but Tanks took a lot more skill to counter Banes, and the game should be about skill.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
How many terran in the world can consistently focus fire with a widow mine, again?
Great. While we're cutting WMs for being shit design, let's make sure we first remove roaches, Ultralisks, Corruptors, Lurkers, vipers, Zealots, adepts, dark Templar, archon, MSC, mothership, carrier, tempest, void ray, Colossus, Oracle, thor, Battlecruiser for being the same or worse.
Let's then not forget to make up a new reason for Zerg not to A+move 50 banes into bio.
Solid plan.
There is no way that Zerglings have a gambling aspect to them.
Congrats on picking like the one unit he didn't mention.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
And again in that fashion the results are random. You are hoping your opponent moves units here without detection. Hoping for them to make a poor play which you can then capitalize on instantly, not making a good play on your own.
That is the crux of the problem of the Widow Mine, the instant burst damage at such a low cost and accessible so early in the game is a terrible mechanic that hinders game design. Only the Yatamoto Cannon and the Nuke do more damage per hit.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
They not used like that. Cyclone openings are better than defensive mine openings in every way. Liberators and turrets deal fine with mutas.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
Below this is the first thing I said on this on the last page. Why are you misrepresenting what I said?
BronzeKnee wrote:
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
The gamble is setting and forgetting and hoping your opponent is bad. That is a gamble, and I clearly wrote that.
The problem lies with your comprehension and the fact you are purposely trying to misrepresent my argument and want me to say "well you just random spread them around" which is not what I said.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
Below this is the first thing I said on this on the last page. Why are you misrepresenting what I said?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
The gamble is setting and forgetting and hoping your opponent is bad. That is a gamble, and I clearly wrote that.
The problem lies with your comprehension.
Its not a "set and forget" its a "guarantee and kill" :p
Still no comment over the fact that cyclones and liberators killed those uses.
Blizzard please look into buffing the cyclone. The unit right now is basically useless for anything other than trolling your opponent. Its too expensive and too fragile, not to mention hard to use in large numbers.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
Below this is the first thing I said on this on the last page. Why are you misrepresenting what I said?
BronzeKnee wrote:
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
The gamble is setting and forgetting and hoping your opponent is bad. That is a gamble, and I clearly wrote that.
The problem lies with your comprehension.
Its not a "set and forget" its a "guarantee and kill" :p
The sentence ends where I decide it ends when I put a period. You don't get to decide where my sentences end. If you understood the context of what I was saying and could comprehend it, you understand that when defending with a Widow Mine (which means something is attacking, you have to have an attacker to defend anything), you can guarantee a kill if the opponent has no detection after setting and forgetting it.
And is that not what I said: "There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill."
You can't just remove the word defending, remove the set and forget and pretend I meant something different. Can't just add random placement into my argument for fun so you can win the argument.
This forum has really become toxic huh... people purposely misquoting others...
And by the way, when did you stop beating your partner?
On January 23 2016 06:52 royalroadweed wrote:
Still no comment over the fact that cyclones and liberators killed those uses.
Still waiting for you to comment on WM used in harass purposes. And talk about how I was right about the "rare" issue which you so quickly gave up.
On January 23 2016 06:52 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please look into buffing the cyclone. The unit right now is basically useless for anything other than trolling your opponent. Its too expensive and too fragile, not to mention hard to use in large numbers.
Cyclone are very good as a early game defensive unit in TvT and TvP, they do fill a role in the game.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game.
So along with WM, we remove stasis ward, Lurkers, and Vultures from Brood War?
This conversation has nothing to do with Brood War. That said, Spider Mines could be killed before they hit (even if you had no detection), and just because Brood War was a great game, doesn't mean certain things couldn't be improved upon.
But let's compare them to Lurkers, now that Lurkers are in the game. If you run into a single Lurker with your army while you are macroing, you'll get the signal that you army is under attack, and be able to react losing nothing.
When you get that signal versus a Widow Mine, you've already lost units.
The problem is burst damage, as it has always been with so many things in Starcraft. Razzia of Blizzsters so brilliantly illuminated that, that things like the Widow Mine compress time (reaction time) to the point where skill is diluted.
Now of course if Zerg masses Lurkers, you might have lost your army to Zerg burst, but that the cost and dedication to such a move is significant. Far more significant than the cost and dedication of a couple of Widow Mines.
Lol how much damage do you think the average WM does?
Oh no, one WM killed one Cyclone/Adept/Oracle/Banshee, what shocking burst damage. How will the T/P ever possibly recover?
I don't think that everything in BW was brilliant, but mech was, and your criticism of the WM applies perfectly to the spider mine. Low invest, hard to spot, lots of burst, no warning. So just to be clear, you think Spider Mines (and by extension BW mech which entirely relies on their existence) are badly designed?
The Widow Mine was intended to make Mech viable. It turned out to replace the SIege Tank and make Bio better. It needs to go.
Not sure what any of this has to do with anything. Are you saying that things should only function in the way Blizzard envisioned them functioning? Or are you saying that something making bio better is a bad thing?
The only legit point hidden in there is that we see a lot less tanks directly due to WM. Which is true to some extent. Oh well.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
How many terran in the world can consistently focus fire with a widow mine, again?
Great. While we're cutting WMs for being shit design, let's make sure we first remove roaches, Ultralisks, Corruptors, Lurkers, vipers, Zealots, adepts, dark Templar, archon, MSC, mothership, carrier, tempest, void ray, Colossus, Oracle, thor, Battlecruiser for being the same or worse.
Let's then not forget to make up a new reason for Zerg not to A+move 50 banes into bio.
Solid plan.
Do you know what a logical fallacy is?
Instead of spouting non-sense and hyperbole, try actually discussing things, like why you think we should cut all those units since they are the "same or worse." Zealots are in no way akin to Widow Mines, so they aren't the same or worse in terms of game design.
Just seems like you are raging because you need the Widow Mine to kill Banes. And that is fine, but Tanks took a lot more skill to counter Banes, and the game should be about skill.
Which logical fallacy have I committed, pray tell?
You want WMs gone because they're shit design, I gave you a list of units that are worse designed. How are they worse? Because they are 1) unmicroable and/or 2) frequently lead to binary timing losses (have enough defense in perfect position and perfectly controlled? Survive. Else: Die. Now. Just because.) Umicroable units subvert and contradict the entire point of competition.
The WM is very microable (especially in TvZ, where it serves the important function of forcing Ling/Bling micro in a way no other units do) and unlike Adept/Oracle/etc it never automatically leads to binary losses. You can always spot the Dropship coming on the map and severely minimize your losses even if you have no observers around. The unit's role is upping P/Z mechanical and multitasking requirement to match the stutter step/splitting shenanigans of a Terran. It is invaluable, and compared to the other atrocities in sc2, a paragon of genius design.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
[quote]
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
Below this is the first thing I said on this on the last page. Why are you misrepresenting what I said?
BronzeKnee wrote:
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
The gamble is setting and forgetting and hoping your opponent is bad. That is a gamble, and I clearly wrote that.
The problem lies with your comprehension.
Its not a "set and forget" its a "guarantee and kill" :p
The sentence ends where I decide it ends when I put a period. You don't get to decide where my sentences end. If you understood the context of what I was saying and could comprehend it, you understand that when defending with a Widow Mine, you can guarantee a kill if the opponent has no detection. And to defend, you set and forget.
You can't just remove the word defending, remove the set and forget and pretend I meant something different. Can't just add random placement into my argument for fun so you can win the argument.
This forum has really become toxic huh... people purposely misquoting others...
They aren't even a guaranteed kill. Despite being "cloaked" you can see them on the minimap + it has graphical indicator on the unit it is locked on to.
All that is irrelevant anyways. Mines are not used like that anymore. All those cutesy mine placement behind refineries and ccs are dead because cyclones and liberators are just better. Mines are always with your army now. You should come up with a better argument than calling people toxic. Also stick to the topic at hand./
The only thing that was a gamble with widow mines was not knowing which unit it will fire at. That was changed.
I already discussed important differences that made Spider mines acceptable game design wise compared to Widow Mines. You ignored them. If you want to discuss them, address them and tell me why I am wrong.
The Widow Mine is terrible design, while you think it is genius. Well, I can answer with a design blog regarding anti-fun abilities from League of Legends, which is damning for the design of the Widow Mine.
Just go down the list: The Widow Mine is power without gameplay, which is bad, it places a burden of knowledge on the player playing against it, it creates significant anti-fun for the person playing against it, and is unreliable.
It is a horribly designed unit and simply isn't fun. And SC2 should be fun, and it used to be a lot more fun.
I already discussed important differences that made Spider mines acceptable game design wise compared to Widow Mines. You ignored them. If you want to discuss them, address them and tell me why I am wrong.
1. Tu Quogue applies when I attempt to discredit your argument by calling you a hypocrite, not when I discredit your argument by pointing out that it is a shitty argument ad there are worse designed units we need to fix first. Helps to understand the fallacies you're throwing around.
2. I did present an argument, you condescending douche.
3. Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to discredit your points, your hostility did that for me.
4. Pointing out that other people will commit ad hominem gains tax you doesn't mean that I did. Just in case you were tempted with another link.
You answered criticism with criticism instead of addressing the criticism, that is why it was a "you too" argument. Some people refer to it as tit for tat. Calling someone a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, though if you continue and argue why they are a hypocrite, it could be a "you too" argument. A you too argument is anytime you trying to deflect criticism of one thing by criticizing something else.
And that is exactly what you did, You saw the Widow Mine being criticized and criticized other units as a response. It is a logical fallacy at its purest because it does nothing to resolve the criticism of the Widow Mine.
On January 23 2016 07:23 pure.Wasted wrote:
2. I did present an argument, you condescending douche.
3. Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to discredit your points, your hostility did that for me.
Have a good day. Arguments exist independent of people, my hostility has nothing to do with anything except your feelings apparently.
-1 dmg on adept won't change anything at all - Protoss will just research +1 ... and even then the unit will still be absurd.
Parasitic bomb is a no skill - no counterplay ability. Creates stalemates lategame because T can't engage unless you hit lucky emp/snipe on vipers (doesn't happen vs good players).
And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? I guess mech won't ever get an anti-air unit and will remain the current "made mech untis-> now have to turtle 30 more min into mass air units to beat his air units"
Not enough changes, changes come too slow, and they don't even understand / nor care about mech it seems other than their trivial understanding that tanks could use a buff. Tank buff alone is not going to do jack shit though, mech needs an anti-air unit otherwise it will always be "turtle into mass air units."
Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
On January 23 2016 03:32 brickrd wrote: spore nerf makes 0 sense... you can already still go muta into transition in zvz on larger maps...
Even 60dmg Parabomb is good enough to justify the nerf for the spore.
The Protoss nerf will help terran and Protoss will again go for late games. Good to see that back and see, how it works out. When late terran is really stronger (what I think it is) then Protoss (who does not skip upgrades for a prism adept attack), I could see a buff to templar (Storm cast range +1?). I dont think Blizzard wants to make the coloss viable ever again and never wants to see viking coloss fights. Even the amulet could have its comeback, when they see that Protoss has Problems of fighting and defending in later stages.
On January 23 2016 03:38 Asturas wrote: So... Adept is nerfed or not, because I am very, very (extremely?) confused. What kind of change is that? Is it at all? Damn Blizz...
Adept now does 22 damage against light units per shot. That means, you need instead of 2 shots, 3 shots to kill SCVs and Marines. Thats quite a nerf. The problem is still the prism.
I completely feel that prism's themselves are not the problem.
The problem is you can get WP's so early. Economic income scaling is far too high. Late game techs too quickly and readily available for all races...
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? .
Me. It isn't difficult to predict that Blizzard won't do what is needed when to comes to game design. They haven't wanted to fix Mech since Day 1.
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
Whoa... slow down buddy... this is Blizzard Entertainment we are talking about.
They thought the Warhound was a good idea, left it in the beta and wasted how much development time and money on it?
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: -1 dmg on adept won't change anything at all - Protoss will just research +1 ... and even then the unit will still be absurd.
Parasitic bomb is a no skill - no counterplay ability. Creates stalemates lategame because T can't engage unless you hit lucky emp/snipe on vipers (doesn't happen vs good players).
And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? I guess mech won't ever get an anti-air unit and will remain the current "made mech untis-> now have to turtle 30 more min into mass air units to beat his air units"
Not enough changes, changes come too slow, and they don't even understand / nor care about mech it seems other than their trivial understanding that tanks could use a buff. Tank buff alone is not going to do jack shit though, mech needs an anti-air unit otherwise it will always be "turtle into mass air units."
Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
You know adepts are strong because they can do damage early in the game right? Getting +1 is a significant delay and 1 damage nerf means they take 50% more time to kill a marine / SCV...if that is not significant nerf to you I don't know what is? Making mech viable is not a priority by any means, adressing balance issues that should have been adressed during beta is. The problem that nerfing protoss right now even if it is warranted it will make the race extremely weak and it will take more time to adjust everything else.
It would make it super risky to commit, but still as good.
i do like the minus damage nerf. Ravagers and liberators still need some tunedowns but otherwise, ok.
edit: by the way this nerf is inspired by the bounty hunter and slardar nerfs in dota 2, and they worked wonderfully there as well. information is king.
I like this a lot. The shade provides vision without risks or cost, it is a bad design. It is not a balance problem.
All new units need to be tuned down, no strategy without them works any more. That is very telling...
I'd like to have the Pilon Overcharge out of the game, it is not fun to play and to watch. Buff cannons instead, reducing its cost. The cannon rush is dead anyway, due to the changes in the economy.
I don't understand the spore nerf because mutas are already very viable in ZvZ. With this it will just change into allin before mutas, or have muta vs muta snoozefest all day
On January 23 2016 07:40 BronzeKnee wrote: The fact I have power of over you over the internet says a lot about you. Be like me, don't care what other people think about you.
The only opinion that matters is what you think of yourself.
The fact that you think you have power over me says a lot about you. Don't worry about me BronzeKnee, thinking that you're an ass doesn't get in the way of me having a fantastic day.
I don't think the WM is genius design, I think - as I said - it is genius compared to the other units in this game. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a unit can only be designed well or poorly in relation to other units. Banelings without WMs are awful, with WMs they're great. Marines without Medivacs and Banes are terrible, with them they're friggin awesome.
The WM's defining characteristic, as seen 99% of the time that it's used in the MU where it's used the most, is making Zerg units more interesting than they otherwise would be.
Any shittiness in the randomness of its targeting (still kind of an issue), or its burst (not at all an issue IMO), pales in comparison to the good it does for the MU.
If you're drawing a line for units that deserve to be cut or totally reworked, there are infinity plus one better candidates than the WM, eg Roaches, which are neither interesting in and of themselves, nor force particularly interesting plays of the opponent.
On January 23 2016 08:31 mCon.Hephaistas wrote: I don't understand the spore nerf because mutas are already very viable in ZvZ. With this it will just change into allin before mutas, or have muta vs muta snoozefest all day
It actually a nerf to the PZ vs ZZ matchup as P can no longer use Phoenixes to quickly dispose of attackers by lifting them against spores.
Well, from my point of view, MMMM vs Mutaling was by far the best MU of SC2 so I don't care at all about the tank, whatever the patch is, this unit and so the all MU will always be boring for me. I am a bit sad because right now especially since my favorite MU is becoming zvp...
But I am ok with the nerf of the bomb, the spamming of it is just too strong but a little buff of the corrupters would be nice then.
On January 23 2016 07:40 BronzeKnee wrote: The fact I have power of over you over the internet says a lot about you. Be like me, don't care what other people think about you.
The only opinion that matters is what you think of yourself.
The fact that you think you have power over me says a lot about you. Don't worry about me BronzeKnee, thinking that you're an ass doesn't get in the way of me having a fantastic day.
I don't think the WM is genius design, I think - as I said - it is genius compared to the other units in this game. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a unit can only be designed well or poorly in relation to other units. Banelings without WMs are awful, with WMs they're great. Marines without Medivacs and Banes are terrible, with them they're friggin awesome.
The WM's defining characteristic, as seen 99% of the time that it's used in the MU where it's used the most, is making Zerg units more interesting than they otherwise would be.
Any shittiness in the randomness of its targeting (still kind of an issue), or its burst (not at all an issue IMO), pales in comparison to the good it does for the MU.
If you're drawing a line for units that deserve to be cut or totally reworked, there are infinity plus one better candidates than the WM, eg Roaches, which are neither interesting in and of themselves, nor force particularly interesting plays of the opponent.
I don't think I have any power over you, you told me I did when you said you were mad because of me. But I don't want any power over you, and because I don't care about you, it doesn't matter to me if I do or not. So I'm glad you're having a fantastic day.
But anyway, now that we've cleared things up I agree that a unit can only be well designed in relation to other units.
That said, the Tank/Marine/Medivac offered Terran a variety of interesting units and an interesting play style versus another set of interesting units in Ling/Bane/Muta. That was the flagship matchup for a long time and a big reason why SC2 became so popular.
The Widow Mine waters down that dynamic significantly. Truth be told, the Mutalisk buff makes Tank/Marine/Medivac unviable, but the fact that Widows hits both air and ground and can be repositioned so quickly with such limited range water downs the strategy of TvZ. We wouldn't have had all the great games in WOL with it.
This is one of the greatest SC2 games of all time in my opinion, and with the Widow Mine we wouldn't have seen the greatness of it. The Tank was a much better of a counter to Banelings because Mutalisks countered it and because it had significant draw backs (unable to move while in Siege Mode) combined with ridiculous range and firepower.
Watch at the 13:00 minute mark, the positioning and battle that goes on. Impossible with Widow Mines.
There used to be a game within the game, the Zerg trying to catch Tanks without supporting Marines with Mutalisks or Zerglings or Marines without support Tanks with Banelings, while the Terran did the opposite. At the same time Medivacs could allow the Terran to harass while Mutalisks provided harrassment also. Just 6 interesting units made for a great game.
The Tank countering Banelings was much better game design, just like Protoss was more exciting to watch and play/play against without Photon Overcharge. Now are there other units that should be redesigned? Sure. But I'd love to see Tanks replace Widow Mines completely again in TvZ.
As for the problem with the WM burst, nothing else in the game has burst like it and it waters down counter play. Compare Teemo to Techies (Techies in old DOTA 5.38 I played in WC3). If you run into their bombs, Techies kills you instantly. If you hit a Teemo bomb it is damage over time that won't stack with itself so running over multiple bombs at the same time won't kill you instantly. And damage over time gives you time to cast other stuff, like heals or shields so you can survive.
Alternatively you could compare Zeus who does immediately damage (at least he used to) with his ultimate to Karthus, which gives an indicator that damage is coming for several seconds before doing damage. The difference is the player who is being hit has time to react against Karthus, not so much versus Zeus. And it actually makes people use Karthus's R more skillfully, they now need to keep track of if that hero has some kind of shield, is near someone with a heal, or whether Barrier is on CD or not.
Teemo and Karthus are just better game design. The same way the Banshee or DT are more appropriate forms of cloaked harass. If you look away from your base from a second and then look back and find a DT or Banshee, they'll have done some damage but it won't be critical and you can react. A single Widow Mine can kill a huge number of workers in a very short time, your reaction time is extremely limited. Bad design. It is also the epitome of anti-fun. A simple change where you got a warning when a Widow Mine was burrowing would go a long way in improving the design of the unit.
So yeah, the Widow Mine has a long way to do in terms of harass and as an army unit. Honestly, the game is, and was just better off without it.
By the way, infinity is a concept, not a number. You can't add to it anymore than you can add +1 to the theory of evolution.
On January 23 2016 08:58 Laserist wrote: "We agree with majority of you that TvP is the most problematic matchup by far right now"
I thought it was ZvP :D
Well, I for my part agree with all the complains in TvP and generously propose to nerf everything Terran and Protoss equally!
More seriously, I also find it funny that blizzard hasn't said a word about ZvP. It sounds like the only players they are listening to are the Koreans and for some reason Korean Protoss players are fine with their 40-45% winrate in PvZ. I guess with how many cheese options there are for Protoss the Korean meta will take another 15-years until they catch onto it.
On January 23 2016 09:15 NKexquisite wrote: This is the same update as last week.. I'm confused to what this update really provides us...
Deja vu.
They got a lot of pressure on them at the moment with stuchiu's article, the WCS '16 critizism, the balance flak they are getting from everywhere (Seed) and just want to take any opportunity like the test map release as a chance to pretend something new is happening. And after all they did say that some things are more urgent than others und should get pushed out as fast as possible, which is a type of feedback (that I can agree with).
Nerfing parasitic bomb has not much significance for roach vs. muta, maybe the very lategame it could come into play... but mainly spores are relevant in the midgame. I could almost be okay with spores 15 (+10 bio), +5 may be overnerf, I am glad they chose not to completely remove the additional damage to bio but I still think it may be over nerfing it. We'll see though, it's kind of interesting thinking about the current state of ZvZ lategame, weaker spores / vipers might allow mutas to mix up the stalemate that happens. SO we'll see. Rest of the changes seem reasonable to me as a Zerg.
-1 damage vs light units for the Adept is a good nerf, but I doubt it will be enough. It also needs a nerf to its shade ability, and probably another nerf to warp prism pickup range. And probably a buff to something else to balance things out against Zerg and late game, uncrippled Terran.
IMO this dick-swinging conversation about widow mines has very little to do with this update, there's a thing called a PM.
I'm curious about that comment re: Koreans not getting as much involvement in the feedback process, anyone have any references / opinions about that? I assumed that balance updates were being translated or something but maybe not?
Currently there are 8 Terrans 7 Zergs and 4 Protoss in Code S. Such protoss dominance in Korea, it is unbelievable. PvT winrates at 47% PvZ at 42%. This clearly indicates protoss is imba and should be double nerfed without compensation. Obviously ravagers and liberators are completely fine because they come later then adepts so they don't just end games quickly. I really enjoy disruptor versus disruptor PvP matches though, it is really exciting to watch people avoid engaging as long as possible then someone lose instantly due to a lucky/unlucky disruptor shot.
On January 23 2016 07:40 BronzeKnee wrote: The fact I have power of over you over the internet says a lot about you. Be like me, don't care what other people think about you.
The only opinion that matters is what you think of yourself.
The fact that you think you have power over me says a lot about you. Don't worry about me BronzeKnee, thinking that you're an ass doesn't get in the way of me having a fantastic day.
I don't think the WM is genius design, I think - as I said - it is genius compared to the other units in this game. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a unit can only be designed well or poorly in relation to other units. Banelings without WMs are awful, with WMs they're great. Marines without Medivacs and Banes are terrible, with them they're friggin awesome.
The WM's defining characteristic, as seen 99% of the time that it's used in the MU where it's used the most, is making Zerg units more interesting than they otherwise would be.
Any shittiness in the randomness of its targeting (still kind of an issue), or its burst (not at all an issue IMO), pales in comparison to the good it does for the MU.
If you're drawing a line for units that deserve to be cut or totally reworked, there are infinity plus one better candidates than the WM, eg Roaches, which are neither interesting in and of themselves, nor force particularly interesting plays of the opponent.
This is one of the greatest SC2 games of all time in my opinion, and with the Widow Mine we wouldn't have seen the greatness of it.
you talk like they weren't any good tvz games with WMs
On January 23 2016 07:40 BronzeKnee wrote: The fact I have power of over you over the internet says a lot about you. Be like me, don't care what other people think about you.
The only opinion that matters is what you think of yourself.
The fact that you think you have power over me says a lot about you. Don't worry about me BronzeKnee, thinking that you're an ass doesn't get in the way of me having a fantastic day.
I don't think the WM is genius design, I think - as I said - it is genius compared to the other units in this game. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a unit can only be designed well or poorly in relation to other units. Banelings without WMs are awful, with WMs they're great. Marines without Medivacs and Banes are terrible, with them they're friggin awesome.
The WM's defining characteristic, as seen 99% of the time that it's used in the MU where it's used the most, is making Zerg units more interesting than they otherwise would be.
Any shittiness in the randomness of its targeting (still kind of an issue), or its burst (not at all an issue IMO), pales in comparison to the good it does for the MU.
If you're drawing a line for units that deserve to be cut or totally reworked, there are infinity plus one better candidates than the WM, eg Roaches, which are neither interesting in and of themselves, nor force particularly interesting plays of the opponent.
This is one of the greatest SC2 games of all time in my opinion, and with the Widow Mine we wouldn't have seen the greatness of it.
you talk like they weren't any good tvz games with WMs
Well whether X unit can produce good games isn't much the point of discussion, but rather X unit's actual impact on games overall. You can have 10 games that fit inside this bubble where things are fun and cool, but have 100 games all outside the bubble, where things aren't so cool.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
So I've been doing some math on the tank and taking some inspiration from a reddit thread I've come up with a small change that helps the siege tank and mech without going overboard.
Change siege tank damage from 35+15 to 41+15. Change siege tank attack upgrades from 3+2 for each upgrade to 2+3 for each upgrade.
Reasoning, with this buff tanks would take 1 shot to kill some P/Z units (1 less shot to kill stalkers, adepts, zealots, roaches, ravagers) and 2 shots less to kill archons. At the same time it would take the same amount of shots to kill bio units (marines and marauder) and the interactions stay the same compared to actual siege tank with same upgrade. Also it would take the same amount of shots to kill an immortal.
Once fully upgraded the tank retains somewhat the same strenght also.
A small change that its not too strong but goes a long way to help siege tanks and mech, specially early game.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
I have a feeling we're still going to see protosses doing damage to terrans with their adepts. They won't kill 17 workers while marines slowly drain their health. But I think skilled GSL level protosses will be positioning their warp prism more aggressively for pickup micro...we might even see it become a thing that raises the skill ceiling. Where like koreans can do it while macroing well and foreigners can't. We'll have to see. I have faith that Blizzard is going to fix this game correctly because it will be the last Starcraft for awhile. 2016 may be a shitty year for the competitive scene because of this, but if 2017-2025 is good (even if it's just a thriving amateur scene like BW because of the terrible things that may happen this year) I'm fine with them taking it slow. I like the idea of tanks quickly sieging and unsieging. Sounds like a great middle ground that will make TvT more skill oriented like it was in HotS and WoL. Like a clear division between the b tier Terrans and the A-tier ones, because there isn't one right now really. Sorry, Journey, Bravo and Natural didn't become competitive at the highest level in TvT overnight for no reason.
hey blizzard sc2 team! please listen kr progammer feedback. they play game 8h+ a day. they know sc2 than you all!!!!! just listen and do. It is difficult?
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
@Charoisaur Deja-vu!!!! It's almost like you're talkin about the reverse of PvT for the entirety of WoL and HoTS
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
By "trade cost efficiently" you mean that marines will still be raped but not as fast. I see.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
@Charoisaur Deja-vu!!!! It's almost like you're talkin about the reverse of PvT for the entirety of WoL and HoTS
That's total BS, marines are good with stim shield AND medivac in support, adept are good from the beginning to the end.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
Um... this is like the entirety of the protoss side of life from WoL => HotS
Terran spams bio Protoss needs T3
Now it is switched and people cry that there is a problem?
- adept change is underwhelming. It only nerfs very early game, maybe 3g warp prism allin too. But once toss gets +1, it's back to the "oh I failed my drop : doesn't matter killed 12 scvs lol" - PB nerf is ridiculous. The spell is so badly designed they already are on the path no nerf hammer it until no one can use it. - overcharge nerf : still a terrible designed spell that's nerfed because it's not viable. - don't care much for the spore nerf
STILL NOTHING ABOUT
- thor AA - liberator AG - retarded disruptor - ravager - tankivac ("in TvT and TvZ"... okay DK you finally clearly stated we're not supposed to build tanks in TvP, thanks.) - thor AA - viper/corru/BL deathball - 8 armor ultra
I'm seriously asking myself if DK and his team are lord of the ring's ents. We've litterally seen NO changes for a few months. So much for community feedback. Seed's interview was the wake up call, so blizzard got scared people won't buy the mission packs, so they cut DK's 3 months vacations.
I much rather they do some design changes and than try to balance the game from there. They are so bloody scared over there i want to scream atthem in the face
I guess they are more focused on selling their mission packs than balancing the game, btw I miss hots a lot, the only good point with lotv, to me, is the 12 workers start: all the new units are not very fun to play, to deal with or to watch.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
@Charoisaur Deja-vu!!!! It's almost like you're talkin about the reverse of PvT for the entirety of WoL and HoTS
That's total BS, marines are good with stim shield AND medivac in support, adept are good from the beginning to the end.
Marines only need the stim/shield/medivac because the opponent's have been fielding blink/charge/speed or more expensive, often very specific anti-marine units against terran. Adept's are good from the beginning because all the starting units are light. The moment you start fielding armored units (roaches, stalkers) they become quite weak. They also require an upgrade to keep up. Terran is just out of luck in that regard because blizzard never fixed the oracle which means you cannot open with marauders, so you have to pretend you lack a brain and build marines despite knowing adepts are coming.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
By "trade cost efficiently" you mean that marines will still be raped but not as fast. I see.
By trade cost efficiently I mean 2 marines will be able to kill an adept almost and 3 will be able to kill one with ease, 1 adept costs 100 minerals 25 gas, so lets say that's ~150 minerals that are 3 marines because gas is more valuable then minerals. So yea at that point mass marine will trade cost efficiently with something that is supposed to hard counter it.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
By "trade cost efficiently" you mean that marines will still be raped but not as fast. I see.
By trade cost efficiently I mean 2 marines will be able to kill an adept almost and 3 will be able to kill one with ease, 1 adept costs 100 minerals 25 gas, so lets say that's ~150 minerals that are 3 marines because gas is more valuable then minerals. So yea at that point mass marine will trade cost efficiently with something that is supposed to hard counter it.
I don't think that is true. I've played around with a test map with these customized adepts and they still countered marines pretty well as far as I recall. I surely can't tell you about all scenarios (low amounts, high amounts, all upgrade variations), but note that with 1/1 vs 1/1 to 3/3 vs 3/3 there is hardly any change at all, since adepts upgrade with +1(+1 vs light) and thereby reinstate any pre-nerf shot relations unless the terran is ahead in armor upgrades. And even that only works until +2 is done for the protoss.
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: -1 dmg on adept won't change anything at all - Protoss will just research +1 ... and even then the unit will still be absurd.
Parasitic bomb is a no skill - no counterplay ability. Creates stalemates lategame because T can't engage unless you hit lucky emp/snipe on vipers (doesn't happen vs good players).
And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? I guess mech won't ever get an anti-air unit and will remain the current "made mech untis-> now have to turtle 30 more min into mass air units to beat his air units"
Not enough changes, changes come too slow, and they don't even understand / nor care about mech it seems other than their trivial understanding that tanks could use a buff. Tank buff alone is not going to do jack shit though, mech needs an anti-air unit otherwise it will always be "turtle into mass air units."
Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
Lol Avilo do you even think before you just get on the internet and whine? By the time Protos researches +1 Terran will have combat shields duh.
I swear you at least used to put effort into your whining now it's not even good anymore.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
Um... this is like the entirety of the protoss side of life from WoL => HotS
Terran spams bio Protoss needs T3
Now it is switched and people cry that there is a problem?
Give Terran High Templars, Disruptors, and the ability to warp in Bio units and I promise not to cry.
On January 23 2016 10:05 jasonbourne907 wrote: it is unchanging that adept performance per price is ridiculous in 1tier unit
Ah so massing t1 units is a problem now, but the fact that zerglings and marines are viable and extremely effective throughout the entire game is not? Also with this change marines will be able to trade cost efficiently with units that are designed to kill light units.
it's a problem when you need t3 units to counter t1 units. Protoss can just mass adepts and you are forced to turtle to mass libs/mass wm. adepts are supremely cost-effective against all low tier units of terran. Just watch alive vs classic where classic played with an adept monocomposition 10 minutes into the game and won.
Um... this is like the entirety of the protoss side of life from WoL => HotS
Terran spams bio Protoss needs T3
Now it is switched and people cry that there is a problem?
Give Terran High Templars, Disruptors, and the ability to warp in Bio units and I promise not to cry.
Sure, but lets make a deal give protoss stim. Stimmed chargelots would look like they are on coffee brewed in redbull and flavored with meth.
Tanks will always be in a shit state until they bring back in overkill. Overkill heavily balanced tanks.
It allowed tanks to be strong in low numbers, by having a very high dmg number. It also nerfed tanks in huge deathballs (they were still insane, but a lot worse).
Overkill was the solution. Without overkill, you can't have super high dmg because they would murder everything. This means tanks suck in small numbers with the reduced dmg.
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: -1 dmg on adept won't change anything at all - Protoss will just research +1 ... and even then the unit will still be absurd.
Parasitic bomb is a no skill - no counterplay ability. Creates stalemates lategame because T can't engage unless you hit lucky emp/snipe on vipers (doesn't happen vs good players).
And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? I guess mech won't ever get an anti-air unit and will remain the current "made mech untis-> now have to turtle 30 more min into mass air units to beat his air units"
Not enough changes, changes come too slow, and they don't even understand / nor care about mech it seems other than their trivial understanding that tanks could use a buff. Tank buff alone is not going to do jack shit though, mech needs an anti-air unit otherwise it will always be "turtle into mass air units."
Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
Lol Avilo do you even think before you just get on the internet and whine? By the time Protos researches +1 Terran will have combat shields duh.
On January 23 2016 07:47 avilo wrote: -1 dmg on adept won't change anything at all - Protoss will just research +1 ... and even then the unit will still be absurd.
Parasitic bomb is a no skill - no counterplay ability. Creates stalemates lategame because T can't engage unless you hit lucky emp/snipe on vipers (doesn't happen vs good players).
And wow blizzard ignores literally pages upon pages of mech feedback - who knew they would do this? I guess mech won't ever get an anti-air unit and will remain the current "made mech untis-> now have to turtle 30 more min into mass air units to beat his air units"
Not enough changes, changes come too slow, and they don't even understand / nor care about mech it seems other than their trivial understanding that tanks could use a buff. Tank buff alone is not going to do jack shit though, mech needs an anti-air unit otherwise it will always be "turtle into mass air units."
Also, how does -1 dmg do anything to address adepts in pvz/zvp? This shit should have been hot fixed like literally 1-2 weeks or less after it was shown to be a huge balance issue.
Lol Avilo do you even think before you just get on the internet and whine? By the time Protos researches +1 Terran will have combat shields duh.
SCVs don't get combat shields.
The main issue at hand isn't PvT overall but the timing of the warp prism adept warp-in timing. Even if Toss doesn't opt to do it, the mere threat of it has a massive impact on the game and what Terran can do. This is a much bigger nerf than Avilo gives it credit.
this -1 dmg adept change is absurd. 3 shotting SCV or marines is absolutely not a big deal sorry. And even if it was, protoss can seek an early +1 weapon.
On January 23 2016 13:56 Hurricaned wrote: this -1 dmg adept change is absurd. 3 shotting SCV or marines is absolutely not a big deal sorry. And even if it was, protoss can seek an early +1 weapon.
it takes them a full 50% longer to kill scvs and marines, how is that NOT a big deal?
On January 23 2016 13:56 Hurricaned wrote: this -1 dmg adept change is absurd. 3 shotting SCV or marines is absolutely not a big deal sorry. And even if it was, protoss can seek an early +1 weapon.
50% damage nerf not a big deal lol
if +1 was not such a big deal why don't you get +1 armor huh? Oh wait, you're a terran and terrans don't usually like adapting to new strategies or change how they play since WoL beta sorry I almost forgot.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
We don't need anymore gambling in SC2. We already have the Widow Mine, and it is terrible.
This needs to die. We now know exactly which unit the mine has locked on and will fire at.
Wat?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
You might say "well the skill is where you put them" but the result is the same as a random ladder all-in that depends on your opponent not scouting, you are depending on your opponent to play poorly.
That is not a good mechanic for the game. The Siege Tank is the complete opposite, it is entirely predictable and skill plays a huge role in how it works.
Widow mines are rarely used that way. Outside of harass they're always with your army. You always know where they are. You poke forward with bio then retreat into mines drawing the enemy army into mine fire.
You don't randomly place them around the map and hope for the best. That's a waste of supply and resources.
There is two problems with that argument.
First, it doesn't matter if it is rare. We have mass shootings in the United States rarely. That is not an argument for inaction against mass shootings. If we can do things to make things better, we should, regardless if the problem is rare.
Secondly, I totally understand how Widow Mines are used and have been used. And it was not how Blizzard intended them to be used. That in itself isn't a problem, though it is damning for the designers (have to get my dig against David Kim in).
Widow Mines are used defensively in locations versus Drops/Oracles/Mutalisks quite frequently, often spread as I said, not random, but in set and forget fashion. There is no other unit like the Widow for defending, set and forget and guarantee and kill.
Good job changing your stance on the wm being a "gamble" to a set "set and forget and guarantee and kill".
Below this is the first thing I said on this on the last page. Why are you misrepresenting what I said?
That isn't the problem when it comes to gambling and the Widow Mine. The problem is that you set it and forget it somewhere. It takes no skill. If your opponent happens to run over it without detection, they lose. And of course, they might have no detection and not run over it, so it isn't reliable.
The gamble is setting and forgetting and hoping your opponent is bad. That is a gamble, and I clearly wrote that.
The problem lies with your comprehension and the fact you are purposely trying to misrepresent my argument and want me to say "well you just random spread them around" which is not what I said.
This is a silly argument. There are numerous units in the game where they are activated and forgotten about. In fact, you can even transform a Tank into Siege Mode and 'forget' about it - so when an enemy unit accidentally steps into its range and gets blown up, is that luck? You can even set up High Templar/Photon Cannon positions all over the map to establish late-game map control in HotS TvP - is it 'luck', or the 'functional equivalent of luck', when a Terran combat group 'accidentally' walks within vision range of a HT, and then the Protoss just presses T on the Terran?
The reality is, Widow Mines cannot be described as 'luck', except in TvZ when Zerg swarms over an unprepared Terran and the Terran selects all WMs in a panic and activates all of them, where it does serve as a 'luck' unit in which it is often random which of the units swarming over the Mine is selected. But I find that this provides for not-so-bad micro - Zerg has to target-fire the Mines with Mutalisks, split his Zerglings/Banelings, or even select 3 Banelings to crash into a group of Mines. This is a form of micro that is pretty good, in my opinion.
Furthermore, the examples you use are weak. You point out Widow Mine early game placement against Oracles. First of all, proxy Oracles themselves are an example of luck - you place a Stargate in a hidden location and pray an SCV/Reaper doesn't find it. But a WM in this circumstance is a calculated risk - the Terran is, based on numerous factors like the current meta, common Stargate hiding spots,etc - placing a land mine in what he thinks is the most likely place the Oracle will come out from. If he is correct, he destroys the Oracle - if not, he has to pull SCVs and shield them with his Marines. This is a quintessential element of StarCraft, namely, that of calculating risks. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
The only problem I see with the WM is that it is too punishing - it can evaporate massive chunks of Banelings/Zerglings/Mutalisks, or it can fail completely and Terran gets destroyed. Or, in the case of the Oracle, Protoss loses a key investment, or Terran loses his entire mineral line. I think this philosophy of 'terrible terrible damage' needs to go
I was hoping to alert people of strength of lliberator when accompanied with ground anti-air with my post but I am pretty disappointed to see Blizzard not do anything about the liberator- just flat out removed factory AA.
I feel like terran is being carried by liberator too much and need redistribute the power across other units as here you see that if you can establish anti air liberator is really damn hard to deal with.
instead blizzard just flat out removed thor buff AA and seems to love the tankivac enough to not change it until it absolutely needs to
On January 23 2016 14:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I feel like terran is being carried by liberator too much and need redistribute the power across other units as here you see that if you can establish anti air liberator is really damn hard to deal with.
This is something that should have been done in beta along with the tankivac change. The current situation on live servers is not conducive to touching either of those unless terran consistently dominates.
On January 23 2016 14:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I feel like terran is being carried by liberator too much and need redistribute the power across other units as here you see that if you can establish anti air liberator is really damn hard to deal with.
This is something that should have been done in beta along with the tankivac change. The current situation on live servers is not conducive to touching either of those unless terran consistently dominates.
you can really see liberator shine on games that terran can get to lategame in those rare TvPs (TY mainly) and other matchups but I can't say I like design of liberators. Siege unit with huge damage that is also good in mobility (short siege time, fast by itself) isn't too great as it isn't vulnerable to majority of units in this game as it is an air unit.
I think the OC nerf might actually be a bit too much, duration only increased by 5 seconds, damage is more or less irrelevant, and double the energy cost. I guess we'll have to see how the game plays out, but I feel Protoss will get behind in economy for sure.
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
On January 23 2016 14:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I was hoping to alert people of strength of lliberator when accompanied with ground anti-air with my post but I am pretty disappointed to see Blizzard not do anything about the liberator- just flat out removed factory AA.
I feel like terran is being carried by liberator too much and need redistribute the power across other units as here you see that if you can establish anti air liberator is really damn hard to deal with.
instead blizzard just flat out removed thor buff AA and seems to love the tankivac enough to not change it until it absolutely needs to
See what happens jinjin. They don't even mention the thor buff now, did they completely scrap it? Who the fuck knows. But it's pretty obvious they are completely clueless or don't really want to listen to constructive community feedback to address such things and they are simply going to do it only "their way" which i'm assuming is dkim's way at this point.
They like kind of respond/react to issues but they do it so slow. So they acknowledge the tank could get more damage and remove the tankivac...but they don't piece together the entire 2-3 pages i wrote or anyone else wrote about mech not having anti-air units.
It's been this way for years, i don't expect much better sadly.
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
They put parasitic bomb in the game because of mass ravens in HOTS. They did not understand the issues. I wrote a couple page thread here about mech/anti-air/air issues in HOTS/LOTV:
I don't think blizzard even read the thread to be honest or acknowledges anything about mech/air issues or air units in general. They nerf hammered ravens into uselessness but kept parasitic bomb in the game which was literally put in the game because of them being afraid of LOTV being mass ravens again.
So yeh, that's why para bomb was added, but then it wasn't needed because they already killed the raven.
On January 23 2016 05:58 Wintex wrote: Honestly, the best nerf that could come to the adept was
Adept ghosts now have no vision.
It would make it super risky to commit, but still as good.
i do like the minus damage nerf. Ravagers and liberators still need some tunedowns but otherwise, ok.
edit: by the way this nerf is inspired by the bounty hunter and slardar nerfs in dota 2, and they worked wonderfully there as well. information is king.
This sounds kinda silly to me. Who would ever want to commit to teleporting to some place you can't see? And if you need a flying unit, obs or a revelation to use adepts, how is that any different from blink?
cause the distance they cover, the way they work and the way the units interact with other units = DIfferent?
On January 23 2016 19:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: strange that they didnt look into the obvious tvz problems. terran have no chance
The feedback they get from Korea is that TvZ is balanced to Terran favored so they don't have a lot to look into.
Interesting. I`ve seen so many Korean Terrans complaining about Roach-Ravager combination.
Haven't really heard any complaints like that from pros in a while. Maybe at the start of LotV, but now more often then not I hear pros say "TvZ is fine" or even in some cases "TvZ is easy" but "TvP is horrible". I think it was Dream who said TvZ is 70-30 while TvP is 10-90. TY said in GSL that he's 90%+ in practice against Zerg and Terran but below 50% against Protoss.
Why do they nerf parasitic bomb? It is so good to have something (as zerg) to deny (otherwise unbeatable) mass air compositions from protoss or terran.
On January 23 2016 20:38 Haukinger wrote: Why do they nerf parasitic bomb? It is so good to have something (as zerg) to deny (otherwise unbeatable) mass air compositions from protoss or terran.
There is a difference between countering units purely with spells, and countering units with units+supportive spells. It should be the latter, not the former.
Does anyone watching Violet vs Serral? Serral was miles ahead and got so behind just because violet went for mutas. Mutas are already dominating zvz i really don't understand the spore change. Just making the spores puts you behind always, hydralisk with better AA would resolve many problems in all match-ups.
On January 23 2016 19:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: strange that they didnt look into the obvious tvz problems. terran have no chance
The feedback they get from Korea is that TvZ is balanced to Terran favored so they don't have a lot to look into.
Interesting. I`ve seen so many Korean Terrans complaining about Roach-Ravager combination.
Really? To me it looks like TvZ is only problematic for terran in the late game.
its proble,matic early to. im top500 master eu. and i got ranked up whit a dia. he did ravager push, cointained me on 2 base, cause i cant move out., nor know if its all in or now. made bunkers, tanks, etc.. and when i had enough top ush out, he went back whit em, + had 3 bases saturated. insta gg.
On January 23 2016 19:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: strange that they didnt look into the obvious tvz problems. terran have no chance
The feedback they get from Korea is that TvZ is balanced to Terran favored so they don't have a lot to look into.
Interesting. I`ve seen so many Korean Terrans complaining about Roach-Ravager combination.
Really? To me it looks like TvZ is only problematic for terran in the late game.
its proble,matic early to. im top500 master eu. and i got ranked up whit a dia. he did ravager push, cointained me on 2 base, cause i cant move out., nor know if its all in or now. made bunkers, tanks, etc.. and when i had enough top ush out, he went back whit em, + had 3 bases saturated. insta gg.
I was a Master Zerg in HotS and lost to a diamond Terran 2 rax. I conclude: the matchup was incredibly Terran favored.
On January 23 2016 14:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I was hoping to alert people of strength of lliberator when accompanied with ground anti-air with my post but I am pretty disappointed to see Blizzard not do anything about the liberator- just flat out removed factory AA.
I feel like terran is being carried by liberator too much and need redistribute the power across other units as here you see that if you can establish anti air liberator is really damn hard to deal with.
instead blizzard just flat out removed thor buff AA and seems to love the tankivac enough to not change it until it absolutely needs to
See what happens jinjin. They don't even mention the thor buff now, did they completely scrap it? Who the fuck knows. But it's pretty obvious they are completely clueless or don't really want to listen to constructive community feedback to address such things and they are simply going to do it only "their way" which i'm assuming is dkim's way at this point.
They like kind of respond/react to issues but they do it so slow. So they acknowledge the tank could get more damage and remove the tankivac...but they don't piece together the entire 2-3 pages i wrote or anyone else wrote about mech not having anti-air units.
It's been this way for years, i don't expect much better sadly.
They weakened Protoss early game and made Adepts weaker in the early game as well. As a matter of fact, I feel like YOU are pretty clueless if you are talking about nerfing Protoss early game twice AND introducing Terran lategame buffs (btw, the Thor was REALLY strong). One step at a time, my friend. Stop whining.
On January 24 2016 01:44 MiCroLiFe wrote: and. One big problem is that the disruttor is faster than stimmed marines.
No it is not, you are just slow to react. Disruptors are not even meta in korean PvT because a good terran has absolutely no problem dodging them. Maybe it's a problem in bronze league where you are probably but I don't think blizzard prioritizes low league balance.
On January 24 2016 01:44 MiCroLiFe wrote: and. One big problem is that the disruttor is faster than stimmed marines.
No it is not, you are just slow to react. Disruptors are not even meta in korean PvT because a good terran has absolutely no problem dodging them. Maybe it's a problem in bronze league where you are probably but I don't think blizzard prioritizes low league balance.
im highmaster. i react 10 x faster than you. youre a toss. used to a move.. instead of beeing on the case, you tend to personal attack* youre in bronse bla bla bla. you alredy lost the discussion. Endless storms are one problem to. gohst suck atm cause snipe is deead.
On January 24 2016 01:44 MiCroLiFe wrote: and. One big problem is that the disruttor is faster than stimmed marines.
No it is not, you are just slow to react. Disruptors are not even meta in korean PvT because a good terran has absolutely no problem dodging them. Maybe it's a problem in bronze league where you are probably but I don't think blizzard prioritizes low league balance.
im highmaster. i react 10 x faster than you. youre a toss. used to a move.. instead of beeing on the case, you tend to personal attack* youre in bronse bla bla bla. you alredy lost the discussion. Endless storms are one problem to. gohst suck atm cause snipe is deead.
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 06:37 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...
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 08:05 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 08:05 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 08:05 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 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.
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.
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 08:05 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.
This is just getting silly. Bronzeknee asking someone to prove a balance concern that someone had stated with a possible attack damage adept change which as we all know is unprovable, and then claims that someone is making a logical fallacy. Over and over again. About 5 times so far this thread. Bronzeknee is rather tiresome. I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it. Doesn't matter whether or not you have a well thought out reasoning or not, I still declare your reasoning to be fallacious. Logical fallacies, logical fallacies everywhere.
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 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.
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.
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?
Yes. We won't know if this is true until the Adept and PO are fixed, however.
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.
Oracles are still worse. They take more control during harassment, but have much stronger game-ending potential and can't be countered by simply being map aware and running your workers away.
Do you have any ideas for how Liberators can be made worse for harassment without impacting their role in late game engagements?
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.
As Nebuchad already answered it, I'll just be repeating, but I like to repeat things when I am right.
I made a claim that TvP was balanced and supported it with cold, hard, cash... I mean facts.
You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support. pure.Wasted is "worried" the Adept nerf won't be enough, with no support, naturally.
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.
On January 24 2016 08:36 Bohemond wrote: It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it.
Swoosh.
I did not, in any way, argue that evidence does not matter.
You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support.
I pointed out a logical fallacy you made and was even kind enough to name it.
On January 24 2016 08:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Good sir, you did not.
But you criticized those who did, which suggest you do not think evidence matters. Please correct yourself.
No, you either aren't capable or aren't willing to understand what I was getting at. I stated it explicitly. I dunno what more I can do for you.
But you criticized those who did, which suggest you do not think evidence matters. Please correct yourself.
On January 24 2016 08:46 Bohemond wrote: No, you either aren't capable or aren't willing to understand what I was getting at. I stated it explicitly. I dunno what more I can do for you.
Let's just say I'm dumb and end it there. That conversation doesn't interest me at all.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
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.
As Nebuchad already answered it, I'll just be repeating, but I like to repeat things when I am right.
I made a claim that TvP was balanced and supported it with cold, hard, cash... I mean facts.
You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support. pure.Wasted is "worried" the Adept nerf won't be enough, with no support, naturally.
I don't need to support the idea that Adept nerf won't be enough, because that wasn't my claim. My claim was that Blizzard's patching process sucks and going all in on "-1" solving all their problems is nonsensical, when starting with -2 would have been entirely risk free and would have solved every issue (or brought us much closer to a solution if even that isn't enough of a nerf). My support for Blizzard's patching process sucking was LotV, my support for testing -2 being risk free was that it's a lot easier to predict the effects of a -1 nerf if we've already seen the current version and -2, so this change can be made with minimal time wasted, but predicting -2 when we only know -1 is a lot harder and requires further PTR that further wastes valuable time. Please follow along.
On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote: ...after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd?
On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote: 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.
So... which is it? Is it the state of the game or are you worried about Terran losing?
Those are mutually exclusive statements, my win rate response was to the first comment you made. You can't change what you said to damn my argument, royalweed tried that yesterday.
Why is -1 for Adepts nonsensical? That is the claim you are making, support it! Your support was stating how you weren't sure it if was enough because Protoss could get a Forge and upgrade. That isn't a lot of evidence, instead why not spend some time in the unit tester and prove that -1 is nonsensical? Then I'd have no answer, and maybe you could actually change the direction of how Blizzard balances the game!
I'm all for an Adept and PO nerf as a Protoss player. I just want compensatory buffs so Protoss winrate doesn't entirely tank, that is all.
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.
It was, in terms of win rate.
That's incorrect. If you kept track of the number of games played and results, it was clear when things went wrong. With GSL stats, blink stalkers pushed the number of terrans in the GSL to record low numbers, and while the remaining few terrans had OK winrates, this was attributed to excellent terrans meeting mediocre protoss. When the terrans reached higher in the brackets and were paired up with better opposition, they lost as well. But, naturally, during the culling, PvT stats showed a clear imbalance. The trend was reversed when T numbers were low enough. Aligulac showed none of this, of course, due to the nature of the statistics there.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you.
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
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.
It was, in terms of win rate.
That's incorrect. If you kept track of the number of games played and results, it was clear when things went wrong. With GSL stats, blink stalkers pushed the number of terrans in the GSL to record low numbers, and while the remaining few terrans had OK winrates, this was attributed to excellent terrans meeting mediocre protoss. When the terrans reached higher in the brackets and were paired up with better opposition, they lost as well. But, naturally, during the culling, PvT stats showed a clear imbalance. The trend was reversed when T numbers were low enough. Aligulac showed none of this, of course, due to the nature of the statistics there.
You're making a lot of assumption there. If your inferences were correct, then during GomTvT Protoss would have had a 50/50 win rate versus Terran. They did not. August 2011 was the height of TvT, 47% winrate for Protoss.
But the real evidence to disprove your theory is the second chart on the balance report. I asked for that chart long ago, because it shows performance differences. This may shock you, but it correlates quite closely to winrates, but collects data in matter that corrects for skill.
In August 2011, Protoss was -71, today they are -52. In 2011 Terran was +51, today +11.
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.
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.
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?
Yes. We won't know if this is true until the Adept and PO are fixed, however.
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.
Oracles are still worse. They take more control during harassment, but have much stronger game-ending potential and can't be countered by simply being map aware and running your workers away.
Do you have any ideas for how Liberators can be made worse for harassment without impacting their role in late game engagements?
Oracles are problematic, but almost useless in a straight up engagement. Liberators are awesome at almost any roll. The versatility of Liberators is the real problem. I've said this before, but it doesn't make sense to have siege units, which are fast and mobile. Collosi were terrible for the game for this exact reason. And as we see, tankivacs are ruining TvT and will probably start to ruin TvP on some maps (think of 1/1/1 Version 2.0). Liberators should therefore keep their speed and mobility but be toned down in regards to damage and range or they should have reduced speed and a longer transformation time, but keep their damage and range. At present they are just too well rounded.
As for Adepts: I think that you are underestimating just how huge the upcoming damage nerf is. -1 damage sounds like nothing, but effectively it's like nerfing Adept dps by a 1/3 vs Marines and SCVs, Terran's two most important units. The nerf is also very elegant, because it reduces or potentially fixes the problem, without making Adepts too weak in later stages of the game.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you.
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling?
Well statistics show that TvP is terran favored, the only problem with adepts is, is that when toss wins with adepts it seems really one-sided, so terrans obviously come and whine about it as usual, but in reality the matchup is close to balanced. The real issue here is liberators and making the late game terrible for protoss. You can go harass with liberators with 0 micro and they are an insanely good support unit late game as well.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. It doesn't make sense to ask someone to prove an opinion on a balance change as there exists not enough information to do so. By demanding proof and to declare that it is a logical fallacy to not be able to prove an issue is a line of reasoning that is a logical fallacy in itself. Ironic right? Wasted never declared that -1 damage wouldn't be enough, but Bronzeknee created a strawman, declared it a logical fallacy and declared that the onus of proof would be not upon himself to prove that it was indeed a logical fallacy. Clever is it not?
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
So all I need to do is say that Smurfs live on the moon, and when someone asks for proof, I tell them they are stalling?
Goes against everything science is based on, but sounds fun!
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.
It was, in terms of win rate.
That's incorrect. If you kept track of the number of games played and results, it was clear when things went wrong. With GSL stats, blink stalkers pushed the number of terrans in the GSL to record low numbers, and while the remaining few terrans had OK winrates, this was attributed to excellent terrans meeting mediocre protoss. When the terrans reached higher in the brackets and were paired up with better opposition, they lost as well. But, naturally, during the culling, PvT stats showed a clear imbalance. The trend was reversed when T numbers were low enough. Aligulac showed none of this, of course, due to the nature of the statistics there.
You're making a lot of assumption there. If your inferences were correct, then during GomTvT Protoss would not have had a 50/50 win rate versus Terran. They did not.
But the real evidence to disprove your theory is the second chart on the balance report. I asked for that chart long ago, because it shows performance differences. This may shock you, but it correlates quite closely to winrates, but collects data in matter that corrects for skill.
Not a shocker that Protoss is underperforming right now, and that Terran is performing better than expected.
I literally can't parse your sentences, I think you messed up with negation somehow. Anyway, GomTvT wasn't balanced, and looking carefully enough, this became clear.
As for the balance report that you like to quote, it shows less than nothing about balance. This has been discussed to death, so I'll refer you to the large number of discussions on TeamLiquid that explain why that is. I'm not one for being a broken record. Good night.
On January 24 2016 09:05 BronzeKnee wrote: But the real evidence to disprove your theory is the second chart on the balance report. I asked for that chart long ago, because it shows performance differences. This may shock you, but it correlates quite closely to winrates, but collects data in matter that corrects for skill.
Both charts are barely relevant. The first contains too many irrelevant games and the second is only based on past performance. So if you have a long period of protoss favored balanced like we've had, any correction will also show up as protoss underperformance and others overperforming.
On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote: 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.
So... which is it? Is it the state of the game or are you worried about Terran losing?
Those are mutually exclusive statements, my win rate response was to the first comment you made. You can't change what you said to damn my argument, royalweed tried that yesterday.
Did Seed not 3-0 Bomber? Did Classic not 2-0 aLive? Was it all just a bad dream, BronzeKnee? Or did the state of the game actually cause numerous PvT blowouts off the back of Adept harassment?
Why is -1 for Adepts nonsensical? That is the claim you are making, support it! Your support was stating how you weren't sure it if was enough because Protoss could get a Forge and upgrade. That isn't a lot of evidence, instead why not spend some time in the unit tester and prove that -1 is nonsensical?
My support for Blizzard's patching process sucking was LotV, my support for testing -2 being risk free was that it's a lot easier to predict the effects of a -1 nerf if we've already seen the current version and -2, so this change can be made with minimal time wasted, but predicting -2 when we only know -1 is a lot harder and requires further PTR that further wastes valuable time. Please follow along.
You know what happens if Blizz tries -1 and it isn't enough? They have to try -2 next, because it's JUST change enough to possibly make a difference without impacting anything else. That means we wait on another patch. You know what happens if -2 then turns out not to be enough, either? They have to come up with another solution. We wait on yet another patch.
You know what happens if Blizz tried -2 and it was too much? Change to -1, no need for PTR, patch the game. You know what happens if Blizz tried -2 and it wasn't enough? They have to come up with another solution. They're one full patch ahead of schedule.
I'm all for an Adept and PO nerf as a Protoss player. I just want compensatory buffs so Protoss winrate doesn't entirely tank, that is all.
Protoss will very likely need compensatory buffs in TvP, and without a shred of doubt in PvZ. No way to know what kind of buffs until we see a normal early game develop, however.
On January 24 2016 09:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument.
He claimed that -1 was non-sensical, then offered no evidence why. I called him out on that.
Additionally, his other fallacy was anecdotal evidence... based on his experience TvP was great imbalanced. This does not match up with the statistical winrats.
And his post above is exactly the same thing, anecdotal evidence.
The winrate for in PvT in the GSL is 50/50 but he is cherry picking the game Terran lost as evidence that there is a problem. Granted he switch his argument and is now claiming that winrate doesn't matter, it is about the games themselves. But that was not his initial argument.
The funny thing is, him and I agree on where the game needs to go =)
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. It doesn't make sense to ask someone to prove an opinion on a balance change as there exists not enough information to do so. By demanding proof and to declare that it is a logical fallacy to not be able to prove an issue is a line of reasoning that is a logical fallacy in itself. Ironic right? Wasted never declared that -1 damage wouldn't be enough, but Bronzeknee created a strawman, declared it a logical fallacy and declared that the onus of proof would be not upon himself to prove that it was indeed a logical fallacy. Clever is it not?
Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. You're basically asking me to accept a claim that hasn't been proven because it can't be proven... That's not how it works.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you.
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling?
Can you prove that?
_________ SSL figures and the current Dreamhack figures have been mentioned already in this thread and provide some support for pure.Wasted. Plus, assuming you watch the game regularly, the games themselves can provide proof for either side.
I dunno, to me it seems like no matter where you fall on this issue, you'd have to admit that both sides have proof.
As for pure.Wasted's opinion on the -1 attack nerf. I disagree with it. I think that -1 is probably enough and when combined with the overcharge nerf will make Protoss the weakest race. But asking him to provide proof for a speculation is a bit, uh, silly.
On January 24 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote: Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted.
Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. It doesn't make sense to ask someone to prove an opinion on a balance change as there exists not enough information to do so. By demanding proof and to declare that it is a logical fallacy to not be able to prove an issue is a line of reasoning that is a logical fallacy in itself. Ironic right? Wasted never declared that -1 damage wouldn't be enough, but Bronzeknee created a strawman, declared it a logical fallacy and declared that the onus of proof would be not upon himself to prove that it was indeed a logical fallacy. Clever is it not?
Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. You're basically asking me to accept a claim that hasn't been proven because it can't be proven... That's not how it works.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. It doesn't make sense to ask someone to prove an opinion on a balance change as there exists not enough information to do so. By demanding proof and to declare that it is a logical fallacy to not be able to prove an issue is a line of reasoning that is a logical fallacy in itself. Ironic right? Wasted never declared that -1 damage wouldn't be enough, but Bronzeknee created a strawman, declared it a logical fallacy and declared that the onus of proof would be not upon himself to prove that it was indeed a logical fallacy. Clever is it not?
Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. You're basically asking me to accept a claim that hasn't been proven because it can't be proven... That's not how it works.
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4.
Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical.
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4.
Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical.
My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem.
On January 24 2016 09:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument.
He claimed that -1 was non-sensical, then offered no evidence why. I called him out on that.
Additionally, his other fallacy was anecdotal evidence... based on his experience TvP was great imbalanced. This does not match up with the statistical winrats.
And his post above is exactly the same thing, anecdotal evidence.
The winrate for in PvT in the GSL is 50/50 but he is cherry picking the game Terran lost as evidence that there is a problem. Granted he switch his argument and is now claiming that winrate doesn't matter, it is about the games themselves. But that was not his initial argument.
The funny thing is, him and I agree on where the game needs to go =)
So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
Right. I'm sorry, did I at some point state, without noticing, that every Protoss 3-0's every Terran all of the time? I mean, it's either that, or you've been arguing against a made up strawman for two pages while throwing the book of logical fallacies at everyone else. And boy, that would be silly.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you.
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling?
Can you prove that?
_________ SSL figures and the current Dreamhack figures have been mentioned already in this thread and provide some support for pure.Wasted. Plus, assuming you watch the game regularly, the games themselves can provide proof for either side.
I dunno, to me it seems like no matter where you fall on this issue, you'd have to admit that both sides have proof.
As for pure.Wasted's opinion on the -1 attack nerf. I disagree with it. I think that -1 is probably enough and when combined with the overcharge nerf will make Protoss the weakest race. But asking him to provide proof for a speculation is a bit, uh, silly.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that I never said that "-1 probably won't be enough." I just think it's a waste of time to test when we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing -2 instead. If -2 is too much, then we know that -1 has to be the magic number without spending a week on the PTR. If -1 isn't enough, then we learn nothing at all other than "-1 isn't enough."
Adepts are not a problem only in the early game vs T. Adepts scale well in the midgame, even when marines have combat shield. Mass adept compositions are overly cost-efficient against bio, and this nerf does not change that at all.
On January 24 2016 10:27 cheekymonkey wrote: Adepts are not a problem only in the early game vs T. Adepts scale well in the midgame, even when marines have combat shield. Mass adept compositions are overly cost-efficient against bio, and this nerf does not change that at all.
Blizzard has not seen this problem therefore 1) you are wrong, and 2) you should feel bad.
The hope is obviously that with weaker Adepts and weaker PO, Terrans will suffer less eco damage and actually be able to put some on Protoss, meaning there will always be more bio/fewer Adepts on the map. We'll see how that works out with -1.
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it.
It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments?
What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you.
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling?
Can you prove that?
_________ SSL figures and the current Dreamhack figures have been mentioned already in this thread and provide some support for pure.Wasted. Plus, assuming you watch the game regularly, the games themselves can provide proof for either side.
I dunno, to me it seems like no matter where you fall on this issue, you'd have to admit that both sides have proof.
As for pure.Wasted's opinion on the -1 attack nerf. I disagree with it. I think that -1 is probably enough and when combined with the overcharge nerf will make Protoss the weakest race. But asking him to provide proof for a speculation is a bit, uh, silly.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that I never said that "-1 probably won't be enough." I just think it's a waste of time to test when we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing -2 instead. If -2 is too much, then we know that -1 has to be the magic number without spending a week on the PTR. If -1 isn't enough, then we learn nothing at all other than "-1 isn't enough."
I misunderstood. My mistake.
Also, that's very reasonable. Uh, I mean, provide proof of that!!!!
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4.
Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical.
My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem.
You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4.
Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical.
My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem.
You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
Well, you don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem either.
On January 24 2016 10:27 cheekymonkey wrote: Adepts are not a problem only in the early game vs T. Adepts scale well in the midgame, even when marines have combat shield. Mass adept compositions are overly cost-efficient against bio, and this nerf does not change that at all.
My hope is that this will change as Protoss builds are forced to be safer, and Terrans enter the midgame having dealt more damage and taken less. But if that doesn't happen then TvP will stay a horrible matchup, even if it's balanced.
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out.
Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4.
Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical.
My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem.
You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'.
I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation.
What does the premise have to do with anything? The only point I was making is that even something as basic as arithmetic requires assumptions be made that aren't provable using arithmetic.
As I've stated before, albeit with different words than I'm using now, what I was getting at was the fact that BronzeKnee was just asking for proof over and over for things that either didn't require proof or didn't matter.
Not to mention the constant use of the fallacy fallacy.
I dunno why you're trying to get clever and making poor attempts at hoisting me on my own petard. I wasn't even talking to you.
On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote: I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes. I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
You are when I have a strong case that it proves something based on facts. The argument was that Protoss versus Terran was Protoss favored. However, Protoss is winning as many games against Terran as Terran wins against Protoss based on a website that collects data on win rates. Therefore, the argument isn't correct, because the definition of the word "favored" implies that one side have a better chance to win, and we know if anything, Terran has a slightly better chance to win based on the win rates.
Statistics matter. Facts matter. I know how inconvenient that is for the argument that Protoss is destroying Terran left and right. I'm sorry it isn't true. I'd be with you if the facts said TvP was in a terrible place winrate wise, seriously I'd be with you.
But you're telling me win rates don't matter. And you want to ignore them. So what does matter?
And whatever your answer is, it must be independent of the winrates. In other words, your answer must be able to explain why the imbalance isn't demonstrated in the win rates. That is a huge constraint, but I'd love to hear the argument if you've got it. I love being wrong because it increases the chances I'll be right next time.
I'm really looking forward to understanding balance better in SC2 without relying on winrates. I'd love to use your new objective measure based on statistics or qualitative thinking that can balance the game better. Blizzard, Riot, Valve and other companies have been erroneously using win rates which is "meaningless" apparently. So do tell.
And honestly, I've spent my entire life trying to argue, like Rene Descartes did, that things can be proven, that knowledge can exist. The skeptical argument was disproved by Descartes long ago, but people are ignorant and tell me that we can't prove things all the time, and then they go ahead and use fallacies to explain why things are the way they are.
At this point, I don't argue to prove anything to anyone, I argue to defend those who already know. Statistics matter.
On January 24 2016 09:56 pure.Wasted wrote: So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss.
Here it is:
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote: 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...
Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in.
It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And I know people like crazedrat will tell me that winrates don't matter, which I find ironic because he won't damn your statement based on cherry picked statistics of a few series where Terrans lose 3-0.
People, you pay attention way too much to win rates themselves. Thing is, when it comes to the highest level of play, some people (not races, but players) will be better then others. Some P may be simply better then their T opponents Some T players may be better then their P opponents. We don't have hundreds of progamers each of the same level. Only couple dozen. Some are better then others. They are not paired equally in the brackets. Personal skill may or may not swing the win rates a lot more. If a great player goes through with 3:1 or 3:0, after being matched with weaker opponents, he will statistically cause "imbalance" or "balance" more then an average pro gamer who wins 3:2, and then loses 2:3.
In the end, the statistical balance is not worth much. What is worth is the way the games are won and lost. Not balance. But the game flow, the design, the asymmetry in the match up. If we look at some of the recent games, either P harasses the shit out of Terran and wins, or Terran defends and proceeds to win in the late game.
In other words, Protoss early game (PO, Adepts, Warp Prism) swings the game heavily in P favor. Terran late game swings the game heavily in T favor. There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy. If PO and Adept is nerfed. then we need to look at the P mid-late game, or maybe even at the T new unit roster (especially Liberator).
You people arguing about proving imbalance, or throwing "fallacy" and other arguments (logical or not) just pollute this thread. Get back to talking about the possible future changes. Stop arguing about semantics.
To start it off, I'm gonna say that reducing Spore damage vs bio will make ZvZ a Muta snooze fest. I'm a Diamond player using gasless Mutalisk exclusively and ZvZ is my best match up atm (53%), even though players I'm matched against all have 50-100% more apm then I do. With Spore nerf everyone is going to go Muta, only some selected few gambler types might still go for Roach timings. Agree/Disagree
On January 24 2016 19:13 404AlphaSquad wrote: The quality of this thread decreased rapidly ...
The fact that protoss is getting nerfed is bad quality by itself.
It's fine to nerf adepts and overcharge because they don't exactly lead to stellar gameplay. The problem is that there's no compensation for those nerfs even though Protoss has been clearly struggling against Zerg since before launch.
You are when I have a strong case that it proves something based on facts. The argument was that Protoss versus Terran was Protoss favored. However, Protoss is winning as many games against Terran as Terran wins against Protoss based on a website that collects data on win rates. Therefore, the argument isn't correct, because the definition of the word "favored" implies that one side have a better chance to win, and we know if anything, Terran has a slightly better chance to win based on the win rates.
Statistics matter. Facts matter. I know how inconvenient that is for the argument that Protoss is destroying Terran left and right. I'm sorry it isn't true. I'd be with you if the facts said TvP was in a terrible place winrate wise, seriously I'd be with you.
But you're telling me win rates don't matter. And you want to ignore them. So what does matter?
And whatever your answer is, it must be independent of the winrates. In other words, your answer must be able to explain why the imbalance isn't demonstrated in the win rates. That is a huge constraint, but I'd love to hear the argument if you've got it. I love being wrong because it increases the chances I'll be right next time.
I'm really looking forward to understanding balance better in SC2 without relying on winrates. I'd love to use your new objective measure based on statistics or qualitative thinking that can balance the game better. Blizzard, Riot, Valve and other companies have been erroneously using win rates which is "meaningless" apparently. So do tell.
And honestly, I've spent my entire life trying to argue, like Rene Descartes did, that things can be proven, that knowledge can exist. The skeptical argument was disproved by Descartes long ago, but people are ignorant and tell me that we can't prove things all the time, and then they go ahead and use fallacies to explain why things are the way they are.
At this point, I don't argue to prove anything to anyone, I argue to defend those who already know. Statistics matter.
On January 24 2016 09:56 pure.Wasted wrote: So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss.
Here it is:
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote: 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...
Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in.
It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And I know people like crazedrat will tell me that winrates don't matter, which I find ironic because he won't damn your statement based on cherry picked statistics of a few series where Terrans lose 3-0.
But such is bias.
Statistics are very much open to interpretation, and not every interpretation is as valid or as important or as factual or as likely to be correct as the others.
You seem like a smart guy, so let me take you on a trip to hypothetical land and show you how statistics can be misleading. This is not a parallel to current balance issues, in fact I haven't kept up much with how things are right now, consider it a pure thought experiment.
So let's say Terran is very strong against Protoss at the moment, across the board. They have a strong winrate in Bronze, in Silver, Gold, Plat and Diamond and even Low-Mid Masters. Terran is quite powerful across these skill levels. However at High Masters, GM and overall professional level, Terran is doing very poorly in this matchup, either because there's few of them, or because there's simply many skilled Protosses who have already figured out an effective counter to whatever strategy wins Terran so many TvPs at the lower levels.
A site like Aligulac looks at the professional level but there's also a lot of matches involving semi-pro or lower players. The latter are surprisingly common when you consider that we also add many online cups which do feature some of these players in the early rounds. So what you have is maybe half pro-level and half high-level matches. In half of them, Terran is getting obliterated by pro Protoss players, in the other half non-pro Terrans are wiping the floor with non-pro Protosses. The numbers say about 50-50, maybe 52-48 in either direction, but you can see why and how they're skewed.
If you look at the numbers overall, Terran is wrecking. If you look at the professional matches in major tournaments only, Protoss is dominating. If you look at the particular set of matches that we have over at Aligulac, it seems oddly even.
And honestly, this is one of the things that we've tried to mitigate but couldn't fully do so, throughout the years, with Aligulac. Which is why I, as well as other people involved, keep saying that you shouldn't use it as the be-all end-all for balance statistics. That functionality exists due to popular demand and ease of implementation, not because we consider it to be the main focus of the project.
On January 24 2016 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote: That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss.
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote: 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...
Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in.
It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And all this time I thought I knew what I was claiming. You sure showed me, BronzeKnee!
You're too much. You realize that you've now spent 3 pages arguing against your literal interpretation of a statement which you've now admitted to knowing was a hyperbole? You realize that there is a reason this statement was not at the start of my post, and that reason probably has something to do with me not wanting to mislead people into thinking that it was the point of my post?
You realize that literally two posts up from the post that contains the sentence fragment which took you on this magical 3-page journey is another post of mine, on the exact same subject no less, which leaves absolutely zero room for interpretation?
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.
What's this? Not a single mention of win rates anywhere? Why, it's... it's almost as if the lack of mentions of win rates is some kind of clue... possibly indicating the fact that what I'm interested in talking about isn't win rates!
But by all means, keep digging that hole. Linking random logical fallacies is a lot easier than admitting you're wrong and have been spouting gibberish for pages on end.
Bronzeknee, it would help if you'd actually try to understand what people are trying to say. At this point, if you're not trolling, I think it's fair to say your reading comprehension skills are not the best.
Unfortunate that the season lock screwup messed with the rankings, there used to be a bunch of Terrans in an anti-adept clan near the top of the ladder
On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote: I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes. I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
When i told bronze that statistics are rubbish, i was called a troll. Iam surprised he didnt call you a troll to.
On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote: ... There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy. ...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this.
The PO change and Adept change are long overdue in order to promote a fairer and more interesting early TvP. Maybe they will show that P is weaker late game and lead to a non-gimmicky buff to some core units.
I think the real issue is that Blizzard have been too slow to make changes for some obviously broken things and now with the reduced number of games they will be even more reluctant to change things.
On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote: ... There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy. ...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this.
The PO change and Adept change are long overdue in order to promote a fairer and more interesting early TvP. Maybe they will show that P is weaker late game and lead to a non-gimmicky buff to some core units.
I think the real issue is that Blizzard have been too slow to make changes for some obviously broken things and now with the reduced number of games they will be even more reluctant to change things.
Yeah... 5 and a half years isn't even long enough for them to do that. Why would we expect LotV in a good state at 2 and a half months? Or even 5 and a half months?
On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote: ... There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy. ...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this.
Language is ever-changing and taboo words only carry a stigma if the society allows them to. Chill out. There is nothing homophobic in above statement. I never meant to offend anyone.
On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote: I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes. I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
I really don't know if he can figure it out. I was trying to explain he wasn't using the concept of burden of proof correctly (among other things) for quite some time and he came out with this:
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
So all I need to do is say that Smurfs live on the moon, and when someone asks for proof, I tell them they are stalling?
Goes against everything science is based on, but sounds fun!
Which, as best I can tell, appears to equate a testable chemical reaction with the claim that Smurfs live on the moon. I think he just assumes people who disagree with him are saying stupid things and either isn't willing or isn't capable of trying to understand.
I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote: ... There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy. ...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this.
Language is ever-changing and taboo words only carry a stigma if the society allows them to. Chill out. There is nothing homophobic in above statement. I never meant to offend anyone.
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs. The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
Well, the main point is the energy increase. When the core comes out it only has 1 overcharge. At max energy you can only overcharge 4 pylons instead of 8. Every overcharge means more, and forcing them out is rewarded more. The core will now run out of energy faster, so using overcharge becomes more of a decision again.
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
Yay, mass air
You need about 15 vikings for 5-6 tempests.About 10 liberators + 15 vikings + the rest for army ground doest seem like mass air. Without range upgrade i don't think terran have a chance againt tempest cause we already know tempest will freely pick off liberator and viking can't do shit because stalkers backup.But with it stalkers can't bully vikings without trade. Run unit tester and you will see stalkers almost get into 1/2 freedom circle if they try to attack vikings lol.
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
Yay, mass air
You need about 15 vikings for 5-6 tempests.About 10 liberators + 15 vikings + the rest for army ground doest seem like mass air. Without range upgrade i don't think terran have a chance againt tempest cause we already know tempest will freely pick off liberator and viking can't do shit because stalkers backup.But with it stalkers can't bully vikings without trade. Run unit tester and you will see stalkers almost get into 1/2 freedom circle if they try to attack vikings lol.
Or it'll lead to phoenixes, more air. I responded the way I did because you gave me yet another scenario to hate freedom.
I think the liberator would win every competition of "how to not design a RTS unit"
Edit: Apologies btw, I shouldn't respond to every post anti liberatorish, but I really, really dislike the unit. I think it was put in last minute to make Terran viable. I think it's problematic and this will show more and more when (other) changes are made to the game
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
well yes, it's better now, but it costs more, which makes it less spammable. That's the nerf-part.
On January 24 2016 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote: You are when I have a strong case that it proves something based on facts. The argument was that Protoss versus Terran was Protoss favored. However, Protoss is winning as many games against Terran as Terran wins against Protoss based on a website that collects data on win rates. Therefore, the argument isn't correct, because the definition of the word "favored" implies that one side have a better chance to win, and we know if anything, Terran has a slightly better chance to win based on the win rates.
Statistics matter. Facts matter. I know how inconvenient that is for the argument that Protoss is destroying Terran left and right. I'm sorry it isn't true. I'd be with you if the facts said TvP was in a terrible place winrate wise, seriously I'd be with you.
But you're telling me win rates don't matter. And you want to ignore them. So what does matter?
And whatever your answer is, it must be independent of the winrates. In other words, your answer must be able to explain why the imbalance isn't demonstrated in the win rates. That is a huge constraint, but I'd love to hear the argument if you've got it. I love being wrong because it increases the chances I'll be right next time.
I'm really looking forward to understanding balance better in SC2 without relying on winrates. I'd love to use your new objective measure based on statistics or qualitative thinking that can balance the game better. Blizzard, Riot, Valve and other companies have been erroneously using win rates which is "meaningless" apparently. So do tell.
And honestly, I've spent my entire life trying to argue, like Rene Descartes did, that things can be proven, that knowledge can exist. The skeptical argument was disproved by Descartes long ago, but people are ignorant and tell me that we can't prove things all the time, and then they go ahead and use fallacies to explain why things are the way they are.
At this point, I don't argue to prove anything to anyone, I argue to defend those who already know. Statistics matter.
On January 24 2016 09:56 pure.Wasted wrote: So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss.
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote: 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...
Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in.
It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And I know people like crazedrat will tell me that winrates don't matter, which I find ironic because he won't damn your statement based on cherry picked statistics of a few series where Terrans lose 3-0.
But such is bias.
I am not a part of this conversation, you inserted yourself into another conversation I was having. I have said nothing about winrates. From the looks of it you don't even know what I am discussing. Thanks bye
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
RIP ZvZ, I've played something like 15-20 ZvZs in the past 48 hours and they've almost exclusively been muta vs muta. Please don't do this to me blizzard
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
RIP ZvZ, I've played something like 15-20 ZvZs in the past 48 hours and they've almost exclusively been muta vs muta. Please don't do this to me blizzard
they finally got something similar to BW and its this shit lol
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
RIP ZvZ, I've played something like 15-20 ZvZs in the past 48 hours and they've almost exclusively been muta vs muta. Please don't do this to me blizzard
they finally got something similar to BW and its this shit lol
Honestly I want them to buff the spore crawler if anything. The patch hasn't even loaded yet and I'm swarmed with zerg and swarmed with mutas.
Speaking of which has something been done to mutas to make getting carapace no longer the go to? I've noticed a few people getting attack first and idk if that's because they don't know any better or they know something I don't
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
doesn't work protoss can just kite back and you can't chase them because of blinkstalkers + storm. the only way to win vs tempests is to pull him apart with multipronged pressure. tempests are slow and need time to kill liberators so you can just run circles around them with drops + liberators.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Yeah I havent been a fan of the spore nerf from the start. If they had a better reason maybe but their reasons didnt even make sense, roach ravager usage and parabomb were their reasons.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
RIP ZvZ, I've played something like 15-20 ZvZs in the past 48 hours and they've almost exclusively been muta vs muta. Please don't do this to me blizzard
they finally got something similar to BW and its this shit lol
Honestly I want them to buff the spore crawler if anything. The patch hasn't even loaded yet and I'm swarmed with zerg and swarmed with mutas.
Speaking of which has something been done to mutas to make getting carapace no longer the go to? I've noticed a few people getting attack first and idk if that's because they don't know any better or they know something I don't
You get attack if opponent is not going spire. It prepares you better for broodlord transition. If it's muta vs muta then carapace is a must.
On January 25 2016 19:03 Tresher wrote: Here are the new changes in action (sorry if this has been posted already) : http://imgur.com/a/4zLw9
Is it just me or are the changes to Photon Overcharge more of a buff than a nerf? It really looks like its better now even tough it costs more. Or does this change anything else we don´t see here? Would really like to hear people´s opinion on this.
RIP ZvZ, I've played something like 15-20 ZvZs in the past 48 hours and they've almost exclusively been muta vs muta. Please don't do this to me blizzard
they finally got something similar to BW and its this shit lol
Honestly I want them to buff the spore crawler if anything. The patch hasn't even loaded yet and I'm swarmed with zerg and swarmed with mutas.
Speaking of which has something been done to mutas to make getting carapace no longer the go to? I've noticed a few people getting attack first and idk if that's because they don't know any better or they know something I don't
You get attack if opponent is not going spire. It prepares you better for broodlord transition. If it's muta vs muta then carapace is a must.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
As mentioned earlier blink stalkers don't trade poorly vs broodlords at all and marines do their fair share against protoss. Mass liberator on the other hand..
On January 26 2016 07:38 Maxie wrote: I still don't understand the spore nerf.
explicitly: they want to encourage more muta play in ZvZ implicitly: they want to have a matchup to point to for the importance of parasitic bomb as an AA option
I think Blizzard is too afraid to actually redesign any of the match ups and they are just trying to balance the current design despite the numerous problems IMO. I guess I'll take it over nothing, but it's still disappointing. Nerfing the siege tank's pick up in exchange for a reasonable buff of the siege tank's attack could work wonders to improving TvT/TvZ design, but it looks like they're going to postpone it for an unknown period of time.
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
doesn't work protoss can just kite back and you can't chase them because of blinkstalkers + storm. the only way to win vs tempests is to pull him apart with multipronged pressure. tempests are slow and need time to kill liberators so you can just run circles around them with drops + liberators.
with high number vikings you alway win micro war again tempests.
On January 26 2016 08:26 RavingRaver wrote: I think Blizzard is too afraid to actually redesign any of the match ups and they are just trying to balance the current design despite the numerous problems IMO. I guess I'll take it over nothing, but it's still disappointing. Nerfing the siege tank's pick up in exchange for a reasonable buff of the siege tank's attack could work wonders to improving TvT/TvZ design, but it looks like they're going to postpone it for an unknown period of time.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
I do not see this reflected in highlevel games. I cannot remember a LotV tournament game that featured a mass air vs mass air battle, but then again, I'm not watching them quite as much as I used to so I might be totally wrong here.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
I do not see this reflected in highlevel games. I cannot remember a LotV tournament game that featured a mass air vs mass air battle, but then again, I'm not watching them quite as much as I used to so I might be totally wrong here.
it happens rarely because the game isn't really figured out and so many players die to early timings atm that we hardly see any lategame games however in the few games that go late terran always go mass libs (TY vs Soulkey or TY vs Patience come to mind) and to counter that protoss/zerg have to go mass air themselves (Patience didn't do it and so lost)
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
I really miss those fights.
I didn't follow Starcraft during WoL, but could be those games something like this one?
(Battlecruisers enter the battle around the 20min mark.)
I was so noob at that time* so I was in total awe watching this! Nowadays I'd find it a bit boring but well... I'm not a Terran
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
Then terran will compensate with ghosts, what's your point? There's a reason why Protoss never go Carriers vs Terran. And stalkers sniping broodlords is a common sight as well (or was).
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
I really miss those fights.
I didn't follow Starcraft during WoL, but could be those games something like this one?
(Battlecruisers enter the battle around the 20min mark.)
I was so noob at that time* so I was in total awe watching this! Nowadays I'd find it a bit boring but well... I'm not a Terran
* Not that I am not a noob anymore now
It wasn't necessarily the comp itself--although it definitely was a big part of it. It was also the meta and skill level of the time.
For example: the BC was great at absorbing shots and draining point defense drone--but that was mainly because no one had the balls to go FULL raven retard yet. They didn't realize you could just... make more Ravens and suddenly a combination of PDD, (old) seeker missiles, and Vikings hard countered all TvT air comps. But it was also the pace and tempo of the game as well. Most TvT at the time were drawn out Marine/Tank or MMM compositions fighting for dominance. Two fairly mobile armies in tight maps with little open space. The tighter pathways made it almost impossible for bio to just swarm the tank/marine comp and the small maps allowed the slower tank to keep up with medivac drops. This lead to VERY midgame focused play that rarely, if ever, could find a proper transition into the late game. When the late game did come--it was chaos with almost as many ghost Ghost or Thor games as BC games.
As people got better that dynamic just got--flattened. Much like Marine/Tank/Medivac vs Muta/Ling/Bling was the absolutely most amazing TvZ matches in the past--we will never get that back again with maps as big as they are now, with the skill as high as it is now. its just not the same game.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
