|
On January 27 2016 04:50 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 04:41 DinoMight wrote:
I'd be 100% okay with removing the fucking shade from the game if it meant we could take fights without requiring splash damage at all times. I actually strongly disagree with this. Shade is the only thing about Adepts that takes good control and multitasking. Remove it and buff Zealot/Adept and we're effectively back to Bio vs Colossus where the burden of micro falls way more on the Terran. I'd rather they nerf Adept base stats further but make Shade better than it is now to allow P to be much more mobile.
Bring-a-friend upgrade: Shade now teleports a friendly unit to the target location as well as the Adept
|
On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote:
But the goal of a balance patch is to affect the game as little as possible while getting 56%+ win rate situations back within the acceptable range. The PO change is a very blunt instrument in this case that deserves a little criticism. Resorting to gameplay philosophy is not an appropriate defense for a balance patch.
There is nothing inherent to balance patches that means it has to 'affect the game as little as possible' nor does it have to do strictly with win rates. Significant racial underrepresentation is a balance problem that isn't manifested directly in win rates. If anything win rates hide population problems.
On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote:
The games where protoss expands and harasses simultaneously are not situations where protoss is getting the better of terran in every category. What's happening is that the terran is choosing to play conservatively and predictably and is getting taken advantage of. Terrans can drastically change things up to enter a more clear rock-paper-scissors situation, where it wouldn't feel like protoss has all the cards. They can hard counter the adept harass or they can preempt it to change the course of the game. It seems like people view the protoss build as a strong standard way to play but really it is just one notch on the tactical wheel that too many terrans have not bothered to counter, hoping that the style they feel comfortable with will end up being sufficient, which hasn't been the case. People view the other things terran have to do for wins as gimmicky or something, like not a real way to play the game, when it's actually all equal from the perspective of strategy.
Terrans have been trying to hard counter the adept builds and failing. That's one of the primary reasons adepts are being touched. Also, strategies that abuse the metagame are only viable when they're infrequently used. They're strategies that can't become normal strategies because they stop working when that occurs. Just replace adept builds with blink builds in 2014 and we have a very similar situation.
|
On January 27 2016 04:57 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 04:30 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote:
This is a balance patch so I don't think you can talk about how things ought to work or what their intended role was or anything like that. There's just how things work and how we think they might work in the future with a little more player knowledge and ability. And we take that and look at how it affects matchup balance. If there's a gameplay redesign patch that they're working on, then other concerns are on the table. But the goal of a balance patch is to affect the game as little as possible while getting 56%+ win rate situations back within the acceptable range. The PO change is a very blunt instrument in this case that deserves a little criticism. Resorting to gameplay philosophy is not an appropriate defense for a balance patch. Is it a balance patch, though? The +15 vs Bio Spore Crawler change was 10000% for ZvZ. PvT numbers look very even and the Adept got a nerf. PvZ numbers are awful for P and PO got nerfed. I doubt that there has ever been a more clear design patch in the history of SC2... There is no spore crawler change and plenty of Terrans have been saying that PvT is unbalanced in Protoss's favour because Adepts are 0P.
Terrans have been saying PvT is imba because it feels imba. You think everyone on TL/reddit understands the difference between a balance problem and a design problem? Furthermore you think everyone who does understand always correctly distinguishes cases of one vs cases of the other, and always uses the correct language in talking about it? Zero chance.
This patch will make balance worse, not better. That's a fact.
|
I'd want the adept to be unable to attack while the shade is active. Otherwise you just always start the shade, I'd rather like it to be a decision.
|
On January 27 2016 05:08 Haukinger wrote:
I'd want the adept to be unable to attack while the shade is active. Otherwise you just always start the shade, I'd rather like it to be a decision.
Protoss already has too many "decisions." That's one of the problems with the race. It needs less decisions and more "do this a bunch of times every battle/to harass, and do it well, or fall behind."
|
On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote: I don't really want to get into the philosophy of game design. The game is played how it is, has the potential to be played different ways, and sometimes Blizzard can come in and change the rules. They can either do it for balance reasons or for other reasons. This is a balance patch so I don't think you can talk about how things ought to work or what their intended role was or anything like that...**Resorting to gameplay philosophy is not an appropriate defense for a balance patch.**
This is a false dilemma and a rather strange way to approach the argument. First off, balance and design are not disconnected from one another. Design decisions make some situations difficult to balance and we've seen this repeatedly in SC2. The Colossus and Swarm Host are perfect examples of this. Additionally, balance changes can drastically change how a matchup is played, thus having implications for matchup design, and what the roles of each unit play in a particular matchup are.
Secondly, you cannot simply discredit an argument because it discussed game design in context of balance, and you didn't necessarily make a compelling argument for it either. It seems like the goalposts are being moved solely for the purpose of dismissing an argument outright.
On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote:
The games where protoss expands and harasses simultaneously are not situations where protoss is getting the better of terran in every category. What's happening is that the terran is choosing to play conservatively and predictably and is getting taken advantage of. Terrans can drastically change things up to enter a more clear rock-paper-scissors situation, where it wouldn't feel like protoss has all the cards. They can hard counter the adept harass or they can preempt it to change the course of the game. It seems like people view the protoss build as a strong standard way to play but really it is just one notch on the tactical wheel that too many terrans have not bothered to counter, hoping that the style they feel comfortable with will end up being sufficient, which hasn't been the case.
This is a defeatist argument; it doesn't really extend the conversation in any way. It does seem odd to place blame on Terran players for not adapting well and saying that they're sticking to a style they're comfortable with, yet PvT has historically been a matchup where top Terran players are hyper-aggressive. Do you really think the top-tier Terran players we've seen in LOTV are really that one-dimensional?
On January 27 2016 02:37 NonY wrote:
IDK man you don't talk like someone who is just trying to learn and get better at the game ("silly gimmick"). If you can't separate out your game design preferences from your attempts to learn and understand the game then I don't think you can have a clear opinion.
Here, we have a red herring ("silly gimmick"), an ad hominem, and a straw man fallacy all-in-one. I don't recall writing anything that could justify such a disrespectful response. In fact, I hold no ill-will towards you and we only had a simple disagreement.
EDIT: Fixed
|
|
|
On January 27 2016 05:20 CharAznable2 wrote:
When it will go live?
Last week they said they were looking at January 28 as a potential release date. Not sure if that's changed though.
|
My problem with this is the worst matchup is PvZ, which is skewed pretty heavily to Z (I know I don't really lose ZvPs and rarely win PvZs), only gets worse with this patch.
Outside of PvZ this patch should be good for all the other matchups.
|
On January 27 2016 05:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 05:08 Haukinger wrote:
I'd want the adept to be unable to attack while the shade is active. Otherwise you just always start the shade, I'd rather like it to be a decision. Protoss already has too many "decisions." That's one of the problems with the race. It needs less decisions and more "do this a bunch of times every battle/to harass, and do it well, or fall behind."
There is far too little decision-making in SC2.
|
On January 27 2016 05:12 p68 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 02:37 p68 wrote:
IDK man you don't talk like someone who is just trying to learn and get better at the game ("silly gimmick"). If you can't separate out your game design preferences from your attempts to learn and understand the game then I don't think you can have a clear opinion. Here, we have a red herring ("silly gimmick"), an ad hominem, and a straw man fallacy all-in-one. I don't recall writing anything that could justify such a disrespectful response. In fact, I hold no ill-will towards you and we only had a simple disagreement.
Why are you arguing with yourself? 
|
On January 27 2016 05:35 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 05:12 p68 wrote:On January 27 2016 02:37 p68 wrote:
IDK man you don't talk like someone who is just trying to learn and get better at the game ("silly gimmick"). If you can't separate out your game design preferences from your attempts to learn and understand the game then I don't think you can have a clear opinion. Here, we have a red herring ("silly gimmick"), an ad hominem, and a straw man fallacy all-in-one. I don't recall writing anything that could justify such a disrespectful response. In fact, I hold no ill-will towards you and we only had a simple disagreement. Why are you arguing with yourself?
Ah! That's a funny little mistake, isn't it?
|
On January 27 2016 05:32 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 05:12 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 27 2016 05:08 Haukinger wrote:
I'd want the adept to be unable to attack while the shade is active. Otherwise you just always start the shade, I'd rather like it to be a decision. Protoss already has too many "decisions." That's one of the problems with the race. It needs less decisions and more "do this a bunch of times every battle/to harass, and do it well, or fall behind." There is far too little decision-making in SC2.
Go play Dota2 then.
I think there's more than enough.
|
I've never quite understood the "no strategy in sc2" argument. While it is true the vast majority of players could win their games simply by playing better the fact is you're playing someone equally bad at SC2. If you out think your opponent while not completely crippling your macro you'll win that game. It isn't like your opponent has some god tier decision making or macro you're both equally bad when you get matched up. Possibly the issue is many players just learn 1 bo per matchup and don't deviate away from it so the games feel very repetitive.
|
On January 27 2016 03:08 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 02:37 p68 wrote:On January 26 2016 23:43 NonY wrote:
This PO change will require protoss to change a lot of builds. Pressure and harass builds were already pretty good at baiting out PO's, retreating, and then returning. Now that'll be easier. The best bet was actually to kill key pylons, rather than baiting overcharges. At 25 energy, baiting had a very small impact. Look how early pressure from Zerg and Terran handled the situation: Terrans used cyclones to kill off the MSC or key pylons and Zerg used Ravagers. These units and strategies wouldn't be necessary if baiting was very effective early on. Running the MSC energy down occurs in the PvP's I play. Maybe it's a playstyle thing. But if you are always expanding and playing defensively yourself and don't run into a lot of protoss who pressure you, I guess maybe you've never experienced it? Maybe there are different styles on different servers? Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 02:37 p68 wrote:On January 26 2016 23:43 NonY wrote:
In fact there will be a lot of situations where PO simply can't defend anymore. So many builds depend on having 2 pylons around a Nexus and your MSC there to double PO, which with 100 energy used to provide 30 seconds of protection and now provides only 20. But more importantly when the MSC has just been built and doesn't have 100 energy yet, the MSC can't defend a base against harass anymore for any amount of time. It can protect half the mineral line and one assimilator. In big battles against PO, killing the pylons will be a lot more effective now. And since the range on PO is not very big, it's not easy for protoss to keep the overcharged pylon involved in the fight while also protecting it. Should the MSC really be able to defend so effectively by itself? Is that the intent behind the design? It's already incredibly cost- and supply-effective compared to anything Terran or Zerg can put out for early defense and it will remain that way. The fact that it became standard to take a fast third in addition to performing effective harass simultaneously is a testament to how powerful it really was. This was a really clear issue in PvT, and we've seen GSL matches where it didn't even matter if the Terran player effectively defended the harass; the Protoss player was still ahead economically, which is a peculiar result for an early harass build. It's just bad design overall. If Protoss needs a buff elsewhere to compensate, they should absolutely get it. I don't really want to get into the philosophy of game design. The game is played how it is, has the potential to be played different ways, and sometimes Blizzard can come in and change the rules. They can either do it for balance reasons or for other reasons. This is a balance patch so I don't think you can talk about how things ought to work or what their intended role was or anything like that. There's just how things work and how we think they might work in the future with a little more player knowledge and ability. And we take that and look at how it affects matchup balance. If there's a gameplay redesign patch that they're working on, then other concerns are on the table. But the goal of a balance patch is to affect the game as little as possible while getting 56%+ win rate situations back within the acceptable range. The PO change is a very blunt instrument in this case that deserves a little criticism. Resorting to gameplay philosophy is not an appropriate defense for a balance patch. The games where protoss expands and harasses simultaneously are not situations where protoss is getting the better of terran in every category. What's happening is that the terran is choosing to play conservatively and predictably and is getting taken advantage of. Terrans can drastically change things up to enter a more clear rock-paper-scissors situation, where it wouldn't feel like protoss has all the cards. They can hard counter the adept harass or they can preempt it to change the course of the game. It seems like people view the protoss build as a strong standard way to play but really it is just one notch on the tactical wheel that too many terrans have not bothered to counter, hoping that the style they feel comfortable with will end up being sufficient, which hasn't been the case. People view the other things terran have to do for wins as gimmicky or something, like not a real way to play the game, when it's actually all equal from the perspective of strategy. Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 02:37 p68 wrote:On January 26 2016 23:43 NonY wrote:
Look for opponents of protoss to do more harass, pressure and timing attacks. Look for protoss to invest more in army earlier in the game. And then eventually look for opponents of protoss to get greedy, relying on protoss scared of harass and timing attacks to play defensively. This is a good thing. Particularly in PvT, Protoss players had incredible flexibility (harass options and low-risk greedy plays), while Terrans were in this exact doom-and-gloom situation you described here. PO is the primary reason why Terrans, even at GSL level, struggled to punish a Protoss player that invested in failed harass and a fast third. If it turns out that early game becomes too favorable for Terran, Protoss should get buffed. Period. But it sure as hell shouldn't be any more silly gimmicks like PO. IDK man you don't talk like someone who is just trying to learn and get better at the game ("silly gimmick"). If you can't separate out your game design preferences from your attempts to learn and understand the game then I don't think you can have a clear opinion.
I don't really see this being a balance patch, actually I don't even see LotV in its current state as more than a "delayed beta", they cut the beta short to meet the deadline, now they still have the design changes they wanted to introduce but since its now a "released game" design changes affect balance.
I don't really expect to be actual balance changes anytime soon, because blizzard still has to achieve some of the goals the promised (protoss being able to play more gateway heavy, viable mech, more lategame units to transitiont to from terran bio, less mass air compositions, etc)
|
On January 27 2016 06:06 Tenks wrote:
I've never quite understood the "no strategy in sc2" argument. While it is true the vast majority of players could win their games simply by playing better the fact is you're playing someone equally bad at SC2. If you out think your opponent while not completely crippling your macro you'll win that game. It isn't like your opponent has some god tier decision making or macro you're both equally bad when you get matched up. Possibly the issue is many players just learn 1 bo per matchup and don't deviate away from it so the games feel very repetitive.
I think he's talking about "big" decisions like compositional variety. I imagine that he loved the shit out of life vs ForGG g...5? The one where ForGG switched out of mech into bio for the final push.
Granted that's awesome and I doubt theres ANYONE who wouldnt love to see a lot more of that. But that is in no way mutually exclusive with mechanical skill checks. It wasn't enough for ForGG to tech switch, he then had to execute the shit out of his bio.
|
This patch was a needed one because the power of adepts backed with the defense granted by PO was too much. However, because P got nerfed on two fronts I feel we are going to see glaring weakness in the race as a whole because, as strong as these mechanics are they are the crutch that Protoss seems to be standing on.
P already has a difficult time dealing with Liberators, Mutas and Roach/Ravager timings and the like and I feel that P will struggle as a result. This is how I see things as someone who mostly just follows the competitive scene.
Down the line I feel more changes will be needed, mostly targeted at giving P better GtA but we shall see.
|
Honestly i have no problem with the changes, they might not even be enough. The true problem with adepts is the mobility(and the option to cancel shade). This dmg nerf wont actually stop their harass too heavily. the problem as i see it is that the PO nerf will cause protoss to become very UP, and stop the adept harass because of fear of home base getting attacked. This is actually a good thing since i personally hate PO, but this will cause protoss's many many inadequacies to start showing, namely their very pathetic late game and lack of base defense from anything other then PO.
They already have record low win rates against zerg atm outside of the few tournaments being played in korea. while balancing around the top end play makes alot of sense when you have 41 % win rates in lower leagues(90% of your paying customers) that drives more people out of your game then 4-5% issues at the top end. i truly hope that if protoss fears come to pass that they dont just revert the PO nerf to rebalance protoss and instead give a good hard look at why protoss can only use adept cheese to win games atm.
|
On January 27 2016 04:41 DinoMight wrote:
I'd be 100% okay with removing the fucking shade from the game if it meant we could take fights without requiring splash damage at all times.
I once made an arcade game to achieve this combat like this, it's called SCV wars and your only combat units are your 6 starting SCVs. Whoever can manouver them better wins. You could try and see whether you like the ensuing combat.
On a more serious note, the word "all" is evil.
|
PO was just a joke : turning your supply into some machine gun for only 25 energy while you have just bought a 100/100 unit that can aslo shoot ground, fly and scoot, recall and slow units.
25 energy was just too low, it was like P have unlimited photon canon, you can't even bait it and attacke somewhere else, the MSC still have enough energy to cast others PO.
I see a lot of protoss complaining about PvZ being Zerg favor. Just watch some top kor games : P is favor, they have better economy while having a more cost effective army.
But Kot P now harass while macroing and hurt so much zerg economy that got less larva, while P has super warprism +adept and phoenix.
But pretty sure the P who complain still play their old : I all-in or camp until late game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
