Hello everyone. We just wanted to let you know that we intend to release all the changes currently on the test map minus the Spore Crawler change in this week's balance patch.
These are the specific changes: 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
Taking third bases now are a lot harder for Protoss. But then again, making desperate all-in pushes against toss after severe losses to harass or attacks will be harder for Terran and Zerg.
i never thought i would see the day where i would be running from pylons
second, i am glad they did not nerf spore vs bio. i feel like muta is an option now, but not the end all. with the proposed change, muta would have been the build of choice. those games are way way worse than roach ravager.
Let's see if I am correct when predicting all P matchups will change a lot. I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
Mama will be able to defend once. And then you need 5 stalkers in all mineral lines. Wont be pretty for the first 6 minuts of PvP and PvT.
God I can't wait for this patch. PB nerf is going to suck and expose how broken liberators are in TvZ even more but it will be so nice to punish greedy toss instead of watching them mass phoenix and defend 3 bases with nothing but an MSC and pylons
PB nerf effect on low number viper only but in high number it doesn't matter. They should make liberator 3 damage x 5 attack so liberator will be a peashoter again corruptor and PB change into 70-80 damage but doesnt stack. Base on what blizzard said about PB i don't think they have same agreement with community about mass air battle.
Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
Ptitdrogo winning Dreamhack was like when Fruitdealer won the first GSL. Incredible win against a race that had nearly a 60% winrate versus his race.
Er PvT is Protoss favored right now lol. Protoss has a winning %.
Btw PvZ isn't in bad shape for toss either. If foreign protosses would realize how strong Phoenix into Chargelot/archon/immortal is, they would realize that PvZ isn't bad at all. But no let's just bitch about balance because I don't want to try something really strong.
That is before this patch. I will say with this patch Protoss will probably need buffed to compensate somewhere.
I recommend you click the link I provided or provide me some links that show Protoss with a winning percentage.
PvZ, in terms of winrate, is in the worst place it has ever been in. Neither race has ever been favored as much as Zerg is right now. Terran is favored in PvT, in terms of winrate. I know that is hard to understand given what Seed said and the what Terrans are saying, but the facts speak clearly, Terran wins more often against Protoss than vice versa.
So I don't know what you are talking about. Ptitdrogo pulled a Fruitdealer.
It's a pretty "safe" patch overall, these are like consensus changes that won't have a huge impact. It's kind of strange to think that we're getting very close to the final state of SC2.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
I'm actually fairly curious about this. It seems like strong potential for a snowball effect to me, I imagine Toss will have a much harder time holding those insanely fast thirds. Which is a good thing imo, but with nothing else to balance them out, potentially bad.
On January 26 2016 14:21 BronzeKnee wrote: I recommend you click the link I provided or provide me some links that show Protoss with a winning percentage, because you are speaking ignorantly.
PvZ, in terms of winrate, is in the worst place it has ever been in. Neither race has ever been favored as much as Zerg is right now. Terran is favored in PvT. I know that is hard to understand given what Seed said and the what Terrans are saying, but the facts speak clearly, Terran wins more often against Protoss than vice versa.
So I don't know what you are talking about. Ptitdrogo pulled a Fruitdealer.
Would've been tougher if Bly decided to play on the Zerg maps.
On January 26 2016 14:21 BronzeKnee wrote: I recommend you click the link I provided or provide me some links that show Protoss with a winning percentage.
PvZ, in terms of winrate, is in the worst place it has ever been in. Neither race has ever been favored as much as Zerg is right now. Terran is favored in PvT. I know that is hard to understand given what Seed said and the what Terrans are saying, but the facts speak clearly, Terran wins more often against Protoss than vice versa.
So I don't know what you are talking about. Ptitdrogo pulled a Fruitdealer.
They are balancing based off the pro Korean scene. The results in gsl/ssl don't show zerg dominating p, sorry.
Now after this patch I think protoss gonna collapse without its crutch. I think it will be. T>Z>>P<T
Adepts: The annoying part about adepts was the shade cooldown, which still hasn't been increased. Zerg and protoss will still find them just as stupid to play against as before. I'm also skeptical if 14 scv kills will be that much more acceptable than 21 scv kills (maybe balanced with the liberator being too strong later, but its not really an ideal situation even then), and also whether sacrificing 3 adepts to do an allin with +1 attack researched will somehow make mass adept allins more acceptable to terrans.
Pylon Overcharge in PvP I am very, very happy that pylon rushing won't be a thing in PvP anymore. The energy cost nerf should go a long way towards making tech/pressure based openers (that aren't allins like proxy robo) more viable again. On the other hand, the increase in damage output is not very helpful when trying to defend an expansion, and the duration boost is too small to provide sufficient compensation.
Pylon Overcharge in PvZ: Protoss will have a slightly harder time taking thirds vs zerg, but other than a small delay, either to get out a couple more units or to drop a cannon or two, I don't think it will be too bad. I am actually more concerned about taking a natural. This is perhaps more a function of the stupid map pool we have, where on 4 player maps (where you can't scout a zerg in time to react if they are cheesing) the naturals are super wide open. This is further aggravated by the power of hatchery tech droplords which forces protoss to simultaneously defend a ridiculously exposed natural and also their main mineral line. With half as many overcharges as before, I'm not sure how well protoss will be able to defend vs ling drops + speedling pressure at natural: you need 2 adepts/zealots in the main mineral line, and enough units to hold the natural against the speedlings attacking the wall (or lack thereof, looking at you Lerilak). And lets not forget that on a map like Ruins of Seras, pylons/cannons won't cover both the wall and the natural mineral line so a ling drop there (or double ling drop in both mineral lines) will also be a threat. Oh, and ravage allins will be more powerful now too. How could I forget about those? PvZ Balance Thoughts Lastly I would just like to point out that in the last 3 months, the PvZ winrates as reported by Aligulac have been the 3 lowest ever recorded since WoL came out, and all 3 were below 45%. For context, TvP winrates during the height of the blink allin era bottommed out at 45.01% With these nerfs, I don't see PvZ getting near 50% anytime soon. A zerg favored map pool probably has something to do with it (I sincerely hope they get some decent community/Korean maps for next season), but I don't hear Blizzard addressing either of these concerns at all.
Solid changes based on my experience in custom balance test map.
On January 26 2016 14:21 BronzeKnee wrote: I recommend you click the link I provided or provide me some links that show Protoss with a winning percentage.
PvZ, in terms of winrate, is in the worst place it has ever been in. Neither race has ever been favored as much as Zerg is right now. Terran is favored in PvT. I know that is hard to understand given what Seed said and the what Terrans are saying, but the facts speak clearly, Terran wins more often against Protoss than vice versa.
So I don't know what you are talking about. Ptitdrogo pulled a Fruitdealer.
I think the jury's still out on PvZ. Calling it the 'worst place it has ever been in' is hilariously myopic (and lends terrific aid to the calls that this is all just Protoss tears). And PvT T-favored? Dangerously close to a troll post or flame-bait post.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
I'm actually fairly curious about this. It seems like strong potential for a snowball effect to me, I imagine Toss will have a much harder time holding those insanely fast thirds. Which is a good thing imo, but with nothing else to balance them out, potentially bad.
They shouldn't need that as a crutch, but who knows what new Korean playstyles will emerge now that free fast thirds are out of the picture. I think two weeks of the pro scene will be sufficient to see if a small buff is warranted (or compensating small nerf if it really is a ZvP problem). Still, balance can only get better with the crutch removed and Protoss forced to post results fighting at economic parity or slightly behind.
I think the jury's still out on PvZ. Calling it the 'worst place it has ever been in' is hilariously myopic (and lends terrific aid to the calls that this is all just Protoss tears). And PvT T-favored? Dangerously close to a troll post or flame-bait.
I didn't create the statistics that I base my opinion on. What is your opinion based on?
Try to match up your perception with reality instead of listening to the loudest whining voices. There is no disagreeing that according to the winrates, PvZ is in the worst place it has ever been in. The win rate speaks for itself, it has never been this bad. You may argue that we should consider other things, but you can't deny that. It is like saying grass isn't green.
LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
this patch is very much needed and hopefully toss understand you should need units to defend bases and not supply structures. and think about it if toss does go to shit that means (hopefully) blizzard will buff units and not one of the worst designed abilities ever created. (which they should've done in HOTS)
also there is still alot of work on LOTV to become a good game mass libs is just silly needs tech lab,"skill shot" ravagers still need a look at, shade increase for adepts, channeling snipe, boring infestors, cyclone are just like the reaper in that you use them early to push away banshee/ warp prisms and thats really it, tankvac is just silly, warp prism range needs to be like 3 not 6. if no tech lab for libs no upgrade. and maybe not sure yet a slight dmg nerf to distruptors but idk yet.
but ill say blizzard is listening and taking the right steps.small slow steps but were getting there.
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
this patch is very much needed and hopefully toss understand you should need units to defend bases and not supply structures. and think about it if toss does go to shit that means (hopefully) blizzard will buff units and not one of the worst designed abilities ever created. (which they should've done in HOTS)
You act like Protoss players asked for Photon Overcharge. We didn't. We hate it. Early game WOL just took so much more skill and was more fun.
We want it gone just as bad as you do, and want our units buffed. It is the reason I stopped playing the game in HOTS, it is a terribly boring and skilless ability. I also stopped playing LOTV because of it. But that doesn't mean Protoss doesn't need some help, because clearly according to the winrates, they do.
This patch should not have been called a balance patch, it should be called a game design patch, because this won't help balance the game, if you use the definition of balance that the dictionary gives.
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, + Show Spoiler +
maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
this patch is very much needed and hopefully toss understand you should need units to defend bases and not supply structures. and think about it if toss does go to shit that means (hopefully) blizzard will buff units and not one of the worst designed abilities ever created. (which they should've done in HOTS)
also there is still alot of work on LOTV to become a good game mass libs is just silly needs tech lab,"skill shot" ravagers still need a look at, shade increase for adepts, channeling snipe, boring infestors, cyclone are just like the reaper in that you use them early to push away banshee/ warp prisms and thats really it, tankvac is just silly, warp prism range needs to be like 3 not 6. if no tech lab for libs no upgrade. and maybe not sure yet a slight dmg nerf to distruptors but idk yet.
but ill say blizzard is listening and taking the right steps.small slow steps but were getting there.
On January 26 2016 16:30 shin_toss wrote: RIP Protoss to 4 zergling ..
Maybe make some units? Like zerg, you know? Also you still have MC and PO.
PO energy will come like super late.. and yeah lets allow reapers/lings freely scouting every bldg that protoss makes. While their base is secured with that depot wall in and Queens :/
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
this patch is very much needed and hopefully toss understand you should need units to defend bases and not supply structures. and think about it if toss does go to shit that means (hopefully) blizzard will buff units and not one of the worst designed abilities ever created. (which they should've done in HOTS)
also there is still alot of work on LOTV to become a good game mass libs is just silly needs tech lab,"skill shot" ravagers still need a look at, shade increase for adepts, channeling snipe, boring infestors, cyclone are just like the reaper in that you use them early to push away banshee/ warp prisms and thats really it, tankvac is just silly, warp prism range needs to be like 3 not 6. if no tech lab for libs no upgrade. and maybe not sure yet a slight dmg nerf to distruptors but idk yet.
but ill say blizzard is listening and taking the right steps.small slow steps but were getting there.
Yeah sure Protoss will not PO Overlords but is that necessarily a good thing? In this specific case I'd argue that no, as it pushes Protoss into getting anti air units at some point in the early game, which in itself is very one-dimensional. I also don't think you actually ever thought about being greedy and defending everything from the other races, where Zerg has been getting 3 hatch off of queens and slowlings for the majority of SC2 and Terran had builds like hellion/cloak banshee into 3 CC. It's almost as if you forget that all races can be greedy to some extent.
We will see how Protoss fares with weak gateway units and nerfed defensive/offensive capabilities.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Protoss army is pathetic without any upgrades and heavily relies on proper force fields. With the new economy all the proper upgrades come too late. Therefore Protoss needs a buff or a band aid. We received a band aid unit. Many Protoss hate the band aid unit.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
lmao stop being dramatic, adepts 3-shot marines and they still have shade. Cannons are detectors, hit air and ground, don't require units to man them. 2 ppl can play this game. In terms of static d protoss definitely has the best tools lol. You just refuse to build the forge to use them? Too bad. It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much. smh.
Ptitdrogo winning Dreamhack was like when Fruitdealer won the first GSL. Incredible win against a race that had nearly a 60% winrate versus his race.
Er PvT is Protoss favored right now lol. Protoss has a winning %.
Btw PvZ isn't in bad shape for toss either. If foreign protosses would realize how strong Phoenix into Chargelot/archon/immortal is, they would realize that PvZ isn't bad at all. But no let's just bitch about balance because I don't want to try something really strong.
That is before this patch. I will say with this patch Protoss will probably need buffed to compensate somewhere.
Drogo has been using Chargelot/archon/immortal since HSC (though without the double stargate opening he'd just kill the zerg before muta's in that tournament). And at DH we saw a lot of Phoenix into Charlot/archon/immortal/HT.
On January 26 2016 13:03 Merkmerk wrote: God I can't wait for this patch. PB nerf is going to suck and expose how broken liberators are in TvZ even more but it will be so nice to punish greedy toss instead of watching them mass phoenix and defend 3 bases with nothing but an MSC and pylons
It's only a matter of time before Liberators get hit with the nerf bat, but what does Terran really have without them in their current state? Late game tech units from both Protoss and Zerg simply shit all over anything Terran can put together except for armies based around Liberators.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
lmao stop being dramatic, adepts 3-shot marines and they still have shade. Cannons are detectors, hit air and ground, don't require units to man them. 2 ppl can play this game. In terms of static d protoss definitely has the best tools lol. You just refuse to build the forge to use them? Too bad. It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much. smh.
Well before we were starting with LESS PROBES!!!!! So building a forge first DID NOT slow your tech THAT MUCH!!!!
Also ravagers > cannons. I somehow don't care about the change for PvT, but I think the change is shit for PvZ since Zerg has "cheap" long range unit that burns cannons faster than fast. Pylons have better survivability against them... think about it again.
It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much
Cannons are really awful against ground zerg at all stages of the game and (i know you're not suggesting this) they removed FFE-like openings from potential viability a long time ago
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
lmao stop being dramatic, adepts 3-shot marines and they still have shade. Cannons are detectors, hit air and ground, don't require units to man them. 2 ppl can play this game. In terms of static d protoss definitely has the best tools lol. You just refuse to build the forge to use them? Too bad. It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much. smh.
early defence against T with cannons doesn´t work in WOL, doesn`t work in HOTS and doesn´t work in LOTV
Yup.. cannons is pretty shit for its cost. zerg has ravagers and nydus later on. Can easily be killed by stimmed small groups of mm with medivacs. It's easy to say just build units when you only need hatchery and not antoher production bldgs for units. Build those early on and you will get shat on in mid game by mutas, or outnumbered and outmacroed heavily by zerg,
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote: Let's see if I am correct when predicting all P matchups will change a lot. I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
Mama will be able to defend once. And then you need 5 stalkers in all mineral lines. Wont be pretty for the first 6 minuts of PvP and PvT.
Wow protoss player are sure very comfortable, as a Terran player we always need marines, cyclones multiple turrets and even maybe bunker on every !!! Mineral line , since we are scared of potential adept drop or oracles , so stop whining that u now need unit or cannons ( y what's that never heard of this strange buildinh right ? That's a 150mineral no energy 'pyloncannon') as well instead of just 1 mothershipcore to defend every harass or drop
On January 26 2016 12:31 CursOr wrote: i never thought i would see the day where i would be running from pylons
second, i am glad they did not nerf spore vs bio. i feel like muta is an option now, but not the end all. with the proposed change, muta would have been the build of choice. those games are way way worse than roach ravager.
Artosis' revenge, redirecting to iNcontroL didn't work
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote: Let's see if I am correct when predicting all P matchups will change a lot. I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
Mama will be able to defend once. And then you need 5 stalkers in all mineral lines. Wont be pretty for the first 6 minuts of PvP and PvT.
Wow protoss player are sure very comfortable, as a Terran player we always need marines, cyclones multiple turrets and even maybe bunker on every !!! Mineral line , since we are scared of potential adept drop or oracles , so stop whining that u now need unit or cannons ( y what's that never heard of this strange buildinh right ? That's a 150mineral no energy 'pyloncannon') as well instead of just 1 mothershipcore to defend every harass or drop
Yes but gateway units are a lot weaker compared to bio. I really don't like PO but it is necessary to compensate for weak gateway units. I think instead of nerfing PO they should entirely remove it and buff gateway units instead.
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
I agree there is a degree of humour how much protoss whine there is over what is really a minor nerf to overcharge. As an example from today before the patch:
If zerg opens 3 hatch before pool on say Orbital Shipyard, protosss can take a 3rd nexus BEFORE cybercore and be completely safe with a MsC started just as core finishes + a bare minimum of units (1 adept, 4 sentries). Because of the larvae nerf, this allows protoss to be even with zerg in worker count all the way up to 70 probes (high masters protoss play). There is not much zerg can do to stop that level of greed atm, so adjusting that with a reasonable nerf to overcharge I feel is justified.
Having said that, I think it is possible that late game PvZ strength could be an area of concern and to be watched closely. The viper nerf may help protoss use void rays a bit more, which could help. Hopefully that will mean that mass carrier is not the only strong late game army for protoss and more mobile/microable comps are also viable deep into the late game (carrier/tempest is so snowbally, slow moving and deathball A-move boring - subjective, ofc).
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
Well and that is a good thing no? Now they can start helping Protoss play non gimmicky and have a chance instead on relying on the BS.
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
I agree there is a degree of humour how much protoss whine there is over what is really a minor nerf to overcharge. As an example from today before the patch:
If zerg opens 3 hatch before pool on say Orbital Shipyard, protosss can take a 3rd nexus BEFORE cybercore and be completely safe with a MsC started just as core finishes + a bare minimum of units (1 adept, 4 sentries). Because of the larvae nerf, this allows protoss to be even with zerg in worker count all the way up to 70 probes (high masters protoss play). There is not much zerg can do to stop that level of greed atm, so adjusting that with a reasonable nerf to overcharge I feel is justified.
If you build cybercore after 3rd nexus you are dead to basically a couple of zerglings so no you absolutely cannot do that. By that time your cybercore would finish zerg can build 20-30 zerglings even if they opened 3 hatch before pool.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
Such terrible changes. The adept may do +1 less damage to light, but that means needing 50% more attacks to kill marines / scv's without attack upgrades. A 50% nerf in killing speed is pretty massive for a match-up that isn't even Protoss favoured statistics-wise. PvZ is going to be even more of a landslide in zergs favour than before.
A lot of people is concerned how p is going to hold his 3rd against z. I'm wondering how are they going to secure their nat with roach ling pylon sniping before msc has energy for a single overcharge. 1 base stargate into expand? 3 gate expand? Seems like it's going to be a bad time to be a toss.
Protoss may have hard time ahead, but it's for the best, cause adpet was hiding major flaws in their balance, now that this unit is nerfed we'll have the necessary input to analyse late game correctly and find out what to nerf/boost to make it balanced and interesting.
Now that the Seed vs Bomber bullshit is fixed (I hope so...) there's still one big crap to get rid of : tankivacs and the TvT dumbness.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
Openers in both matchups have to be a fair bit safer. (Or we need a whole new map pool that is P favoured).
Vs terrans P needeed to kill like 6-8 SCVs to get to even.
I believe PvT will be close to even. Nothing huge anyway. But PvZ will be a fucking pain.
On January 26 2016 15:43 starslayer wrote: LOVING the protoss tears in this thread its great, maybe now toss wont PO a scouting scv or an OL ( prolly still will) and maybe have to think about when to Overcharge rather then being about to spam it and make units again, also hopefully they cant just take 3 base off one unit and a couple pylons for the threat of pylon rushes or warp prism drops. It really sad how toss think its ok too be so greedy and basically defend everything. but if terran or zerg could do it, its a problem.
this patch is very much needed and hopefully toss understand you should need units to defend bases and not supply structures. and think about it if toss does go to shit that means (hopefully) blizzard will buff units and not one of the worst designed abilities ever created. (which they should've done in HOTS)
also there is still alot of work on LOTV to become a good game mass libs is just silly needs tech lab,"skill shot" ravagers still need a look at, shade increase for adepts, channeling snipe, boring infestors, cyclone are just like the reaper in that you use them early to push away banshee/ warp prisms and thats really it, tankvac is just silly, warp prism range needs to be like 3 not 6. if no tech lab for libs no upgrade. and maybe not sure yet a slight dmg nerf to distruptors but idk yet.
but ill say blizzard is listening and taking the right steps.small slow steps but were getting there.
So you are claiming Protoss bases are earlier than Zergs. Get out!
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
please people ... so many protoss are whining. i played A LOT of random and its obvious that adepts shouldnt 2-hit marines. thats the change. and pylon overcharge for p in pvz in the beginning was too strong (im talking of master and grandmaster level - the other levels cant compare on a high tactical level and shouldnt complain here anyway. building 2-3 more units before taking the third isnt relevant on these leagues. please take in mind that adepts are still strong and photon overcharge as well!
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
That's the point. If you are too strong and get 'compensation' after a nerf, nothing really changes. And adepts+warp prism will still be a pain in the ass and keep terran stuck in their base for a while
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
As long as you can win premier tournaments by beating zergs 4-1 in the finals it's all good, right?
From my experience as P playing against zergs was hard. This should make it harder if the zerg goes for early aggression. Against T something needed to change, though middle/late game will probably be hard.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
As long as you can win premier tournaments by beating zergs 4-1 in the finals it's all good, right?
It was really well played by the protoss obviously and bad by the zerg. There is nothing more to it.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
As long as you can win premier tournaments by beating zergs 4-1 in the finals it's all good, right?
It was really well played by the protoss obviously and bad by the zerg. There is nothing more to it.
Bly played bad? Haha.
But I'm glad you've found the solution for yourself: start playing well.
I am getting diabetes.... Protoss tears are too sweet :D Next time tell players like Seed not to thank DK on a televised game for his wins ! Hahahahaha
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
As long as you can win premier tournaments by beating zergs 4-1 in the finals it's all good, right?
It was really well played by the protoss obviously and bad by the zerg. There is nothing more to it.
Bly played bad? Haha.
But I'm glad you've found the solution for yourself: start playing well.
I don't understand why does it say that PO lasts for 14 sec when you play the map, but in these changes it says 15 to 20? Neither of which seem to be true
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
It takes only professional games, isn't it?
The games can be of vastly different quality. It includes games from actual pro level players against amateurs and semi-pros aswell, which screws up all the numbers for things like qualifiers and even Dreamhacks.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
It takes only professional games, isn't it?
Well it doesn't say that. We don't know what data they are using. Other than top ladder. We don't know if this means diamond+ or top 20 GM.
You can't rely on stats when you don't know what pool of matches the stats are coming from. It's not a valid argument. And it wouldn't be anywhere.
On January 26 2016 21:32 adamhu10 wrote: Who cares about EU and NA scores? The game should be balanced only for GSL, SSL and Proleague - you know, actual top level Starcraft.
Last I checked, Protoss players in GSL were thanking David Kim and Korean coaches were demanding nerfs. So it looks like top level starcraft agrees with this patch.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
It takes only professional games, isn't it?
The games can be of vastly different quality. It includes games from actual pro level players against amateurs and semi-pros aswell, which screws up all the numbers for things like qualifiers and even Dreamhacks.
Weird, numbers are screwed in zerg's favour every single season
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
It takes only professional games, isn't it?
Well it doesn't say that. We don't know what data they are using. Other than top ladder. We don't know if this means diamond+ or top 20 GM.
You can't rely on stats when you don't know what pool of matches the stats are coming from. It's not a valid argument. And it wouldn't be anywhere.
Aligulac is based on tournament games only, for the 'ranking' page at least. Dunno about the 'balance report' charts.
On January 26 2016 14:21 BronzeKnee wrote: I recommend you click the link I provided or provide me some links that show Protoss with a winning percentage.
PvZ, in terms of winrate, is in the worst place it has ever been in. Neither race has ever been favored as much as Zerg is right now. Terran is favored in PvT, in terms of winrate. I know that is hard to understand given what Seed said and the what Terrans are saying, but the facts speak clearly, Terran wins more often against Protoss than vice versa.
So I don't know what you are talking about. Ptitdrogo pulled a Fruitdealer.
In korea protosses are really extremely dominant. Korea is miles ahead of the metagame and protoss is such a dominant force there. The fact that you decide to add in non-korean statistics doesn't mean that protoss isn't in an incredible spot right now
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
Don't go play LoL or whatever... The balance won't be changed in two months, you should try and figure out how to win under the new circumstances (it's kind of the point of the game really).
On January 26 2016 21:44 Kurbz wrote: I don't know why anyone is surprised, the game is only ever balanced at the pro scene while the lower divisions cop the pineapple.
On January 26 2016 21:50 rockslave wrote: Best patch ever!
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
TY won that game and he is the terran...don't know what you are talking about and Patience is the rank 1 on Korean GM ladder so he should be a decent enough player.
On January 26 2016 22:02 Nebuchad wrote: Don't go play LoL or whatever... The balance won't be changed in two months, you should try and figure out how to win under the new circumstances (it's kind of the point of the game really).
I see a better solution. We should stick to a patch for one year. Maps change the circumstances anyway.
You feel better if you win the whole tournament because because of "better" maps than balance patches.
List of things community/blizz should keep an eye on for immediate future patch:
-ravager/roach zvt/zvp: it's the same thing as mass adepts... -parasitic bomb stacking -mech viability in general two things -siege tank buff + tankivac removed -ANTI-AIR buffed aka thor/cyclone versus air units -re-combine mech upgrades? ???? Helps mech again...and late game T in general (bio uses air too) -tone down all air units of all 3 races: brood/carrier/tempest/liberator/viper -tone up anti-air for Zerg hydralisk / Terran mech -invincible nydus worm still is in this game over 7+ months now?
In regards to this patch they announce...bout time game is patched it's almost been 80 days. My thoughts:
-adepts will still be massed even post-patch people will realize -1 to adept damage doesn't mean jack. It's the shade ability that's pretty ridiculous + warp prisms. I would rather they have made it so every time adepts shade it 100% drains all their shields so there is a risk/reward/cost associated with it instead of it just being free.
-spore crawler - uh not a big deal, basically pointless won't change much except for the first 10 mutas in a game will be harder to hold off. After that if you're going mass muta zvz...if you have 30 muta you're going to kill the buildings regardless. Pointless to nerf/buff spores imo blizz should focus elsewhere
-photon overcharge nerf: This being 50 energy...you still have 4 of them at full energy instead of 8...and they are actually BUFFED in damage...uh...yeah no. Just gut this thing, it's an idiotic game mechanic that is handicapping Protoss because the entire race is completely reliant on this bullshit game mechanic that is worse (IF PEOPLE CAN BELIEVE THAT) than the nexus overcharge.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
It takes only professional games, isn't it?
The games can be of vastly different quality. It includes games from actual pro level players against amateurs and semi-pros aswell, which screws up all the numbers for things like qualifiers and even Dreamhacks.
No one is claiming that Aligulac numbers are the end all and be all of balance, and that the game will only be balanced if Aligulac reports 50%. It may very well be balanced with numbers that are slightly off of that, but to claim that PvZ winrates went down 5% right when pro's switched to playing LotV is because of a quirk of the relative quality of the players, which somehow never happened to such an extent ever before in the history of SC2 PvZ, and which also just happened to stay screwed up for several months strains credibility.
On January 26 2016 22:26 RandomPlayer wrote: Adept Damage decreased from 10 (+13 light) to 10 (+12 light)
what's -1 light going to change? Not 2 shooting workers anymore?
2 shots deal 44 damage then without +1, meaning SCVs and marines (without combat shields) take an additional shot to kill. It's a change that affects only TvP.
I don't think this patch will "ruin" the Protoss race, which many are afraid of. I think a PO nerf was very necessary, since it was the root of most of Protoss' perceived imbalance, rather than the Adept itself. With PO, Protoss could speed up their ecomony and quickly tech up at the same time, surviving the early game without making any army unit, basically. I'm not sure about the severity of the PO nerf, though, maybe it will actually be a bit too much.
About the Adepts. Well, that -1 dmg is important so long as Protoss does not have +1 attacks. Also, as others said, the main problem with Adepts in my opinion is the shade ability. Either it should have a much longer cooldown (like twice or thrice as long) or it should not be cancellable, or both. Because now, the shade basically requires the opponent to have twice as many units as needed to fend off the Adepts quickly enough, distributed between the place where the Adept is, and where the shade will (might) finish. Also, the patch does not solve the case of Adept harass against Probes and Drones especially. (As one redditor jokingly put, "PO can't be nerfed, because then Protoss could not defend Adept drops." You may laugh at the absurdity of such a statement, but I wonder how true this may prove.) At this point, I think it would be better to decrease the Adept damage to 10+9 against light. That would cause the Adept to three-shot all workers, while only slightly nerfing pure Adept armies against Hydras (5 shots instead of 4). True, this way Adepts could not two-shot Marines and SCVs with one upgrade advantage, but that does not really happen with 10+12, either, once Terran has Combat Shields. As for SCVs, I would prefer them not dying to two shots at any upgrade standing.
I don't know how people can say the PO nerf might be too much. If I read those notes correctly it will actually last 5 seconds longer and do higher DPS. You just have to use them more sparingly due to higher energy cost (i.e. not to snipe an overlord or a scouting SCV)
I think the jury's still out on PvZ. Calling it the 'worst place it has ever been in' is hilariously myopic (and lends terrific aid to the calls that this is all just Protoss tears). And PvT T-favored? Dangerously close to a troll post or flame-bait.
I didn't create the statistics that I base my opinion on. What is your opinion based on?
Try to match up your perception with reality instead of listening to the loudest whining voices. There is no disagreeing that according to the winrates, PvZ is in the worst place it has ever been in. The win rate speaks for itself, it has never been this bad. You may argue that we should consider other things, but you can't deny that. It is like saying grass isn't green.
I think the jury's still out on PvZ. Calling it the 'worst place it has ever been in' is hilariously myopic (and lends terrific aid to the calls that this is all just Protoss tears). And PvT T-favored? Dangerously close to a troll post or flame-bait.
I didn't create the statistics that I base my opinion on. What is your opinion based on?
Try to match up your perception with reality instead of listening to the loudest whining voices. There is no disagreeing that according to the winrates, PvZ is in the worst place it has ever been in. The win rate speaks for itself, it has never been this bad. You may argue that we should consider other things, but you can't deny that. It is like saying grass isn't green.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
30-40% is really yelling "worst update ever". It will definately not be that bad. No one will take you seriously when you are claiming things the whole scene knows not to be true. From bronze to GM.
PvZ is already at 41% and there is a toss nerf so it can only go lower.
Yes it can. But claiming single digits is just moronic.
And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
Top level meaning Korea or the West? I already saw someone citing a premier tournament win by protoss, meaning Bly losing to Drogo.
I think the jury's still out on PvZ. Calling it the 'worst place it has ever been in' is hilariously myopic (and lends terrific aid to the calls that this is all just Protoss tears). And PvT T-favored? Dangerously close to a troll post or flame-bait.
I didn't create the statistics that I base my opinion on. What is your opinion based on?
Try to match up your perception with reality instead of listening to the loudest whining voices. There is no disagreeing that according to the winrates, PvZ is in the worst place it has ever been in. The win rate speaks for itself, it has never been this bad. You may argue that we should consider other things, but you can't deny that. It is like saying grass isn't green.
PvT is 54.22% PvZ is 45.74% (inverse: ZvP is 54.26%)
That's not "this month", that's the period that started 4 days ago.
I do believe PvT will be higher this month though.
You're right, let's list more periods:
153 (24DEC-06JAN):
PvT: 45% PvZ: 43.17%
154 (07JAN-20JAN):
PvT: 52.87% PvZ: 43.47%
155 (21JAN-PRESENT):
PvT is 54.22% PvZ is 45.74% (inverse: ZvP is 54.26%)
PvT completely flipped since the beginning of January, which is what people posting the aligulac balance report need to realize. There's no evidence that it's Terran favored, at the very least, so that myth needs to die.
PvZ still looks Zerg favored, but is trending towards improvement. I don't believe the adept nerf will affect the matchup, but pylon overcharge nerf certainly will.
On January 26 2016 22:36 Laurens wrote: I don't know how people can say the PO nerf might be too much. If I read those notes correctly it will actually last 5 seconds longer and do higher DPS. You just have to use them more sparingly due to higher energy cost (i.e. not to snipe an overlord or a scouting SCV)
Because you can just run to a different area. The overcharge nerf is a bigger deal than the adept nerf. I think the overcharge nerf is too big. Overcharges were too important vs zerg. Being able to overcharge one pylon won't suffice. Someone pointed out ling drops and that really will be a serious problem. And what about liberators? Or medivac drops? Having many overcharges was crucial. I am just saying, I think this is a huge nerf. I don't even understand the point of the nerf anyways. Can someone explain what they said the point of the nerf was? Terran already has 2 units that can take out pylons from out of range and zerg has a unit too(that's available at t1).
People talk about warp prism harass but the harass from the other races is extremely strong as well.. and protoss has less defensive capability than terran and move a million times slower than zerg. I think phoenixes are going to be even more popular than they were before now lol. And the oracle stasis things.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much. smh.
Sorry mate, do you even play or watch LotV? Are you familiar with the new Zerg unit called the Ravager, which has a super strong spell, that outranges any static D in the game? FFE is not viable in LotV, period.
On January 26 2016 12:36 Mozdk wrote:I don't see P doing a good job defending early on, when they didn't add additional range to this.
I don't see why P should not build an army like everyone else early on, or get the forge for cannons. Having such an early flyer that offers offensive vision AND shooting pylons allows for being very greedy. Unlike any other race. I never understood that.
Zerg has queens and can build spores and spines just by building a spawning pool. Terran t1 units are a lot stronger so they are safe early on with maybe a bunker at the front.
lol which terran units are we talking about here? It's like the -1 damage has suddenly made adepts bad vs marines or what? Cannons are so much better than bunkers too. Use them.
Yes, yes it has. Marines that are t1 cheap units will trade cost efficiently against t1.5 adepts that are specifically anti light unit. You need a forge to build cannons, you only need barracks (which you build anyways for bunkers) and cannons are 50% more expensive and cannot be salvaged. Zerg will have an even easier time A moving over protoss, I expect single digit winrates in PvZ...
I guess I'll just have to wait a month or two to play the game again after this horribly stupid and unwarranted patch.
It's like FFE wasn't a main build in PvZ for years and years lol. Now suddenly building a forge is too much. smh.
I suggest you go play Protoss on ladder and do FFE and see how well you do against Ravagers.
I have no idea why Mr. Kim beating the dead horse aka PvZ and still totally blind on how shitty the map pool is and how it favors Zerg retardedly. Nerf adept I don't care, nerf PO nobody cares if you have a decent map pool and add some ability to survive Zerg bullshit.
I tend to believe in balance team either zergs are terribad or protosses are godlike.
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. 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.
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.
On January 26 2016 22:36 Laurens wrote: I don't know how people can say the PO nerf might be too much. If I read those notes correctly it will actually last 5 seconds longer and do higher DPS. You just have to use them more sparingly due to higher energy cost (i.e. not to snipe an overlord or a scouting SCV)
Because you can just run to a different area. The overcharge nerf is a bigger deal than the adept nerf. I think the overcharge nerf is too big. Overcharges were too important vs zerg. Being able to overcharge one pylon won't suffice. Someone pointed out ling drops and that really will be a serious problem. And what about liberators? Or medivac drops? Having many overcharges was crucial. I am just saying, I think this is a huge nerf. I don't even understand the point of the nerf anyways. Can someone explain what they said the point of the nerf was? Terran already has 2 units that can take out pylons from out of range and zerg has a unit too(that's available at t1).
People talk about warp prism harass but the harass from the other races is extremely strong as well.. and protoss has less defensive capability than terran and move a million times slower than zerg. I think phoenixes are going to be even more popular than they were before now lol. And the oracle stasis things.
Think the point of the overcharge nerf was the Korean sc scene agreeing it was near impossible to put up agression on a protoss Base early in the Game as terran (due to pylon cannon) while moving out with your army to attempt this aggresion would leave your mineral line extremely vurnerable to wp adepts meaning trying to take the initiative as terran had a huge risk almost no reward situation That is at least how I interpreted it
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
So IMHO: PvZ >>> TvZ
I'm just teasing, since in both previous expansions Protoss started of poorly and too many people only see the game through nostalgia goggles.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
So IMHO: PvZ >>> TvZ
I'm just teasing, since in both previous expansions Protoss started of poorly and too many people only see the game through nostalgia goggles.
You are right about that.
But what do you think of the MUs, as they are now? To be honest I find the new TvZ with Stim and a-move and throw corrosive biles and a-move rather lackluster. On the other hand I find PvZ better than ever, due to way less FF and Collosi usage, more divers P/Z armies and way more micro from both sides.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
So IMHO: PvZ >>> TvZ
I'm just teasing, since in both previous expansions Protoss started of poorly and too many people only see the game through nostalgia goggles.
You are right about that.
But what do you think of the MUs, as they are now? To be honest I find the new TvZ with Stim and a-move and throw corrosive biles and a-move rather lackluster. On the other hand I find PvZ better than ever, due to way less FF and Collosi usage, more divers P/Z armies and way more micro from both sides.
In most PvZ games we see now there is no more micro from P than in Hots. A lot of chargelot, archon, immortal timings. The only spellcaster brought to fight is 1-3 sentries. Usually one. Before that there is micro in the harass of whatever opening the Protoss did.
A collosi + stalker based army has way more micro involved.
If the game goes past this point I would agree with you. But it hasn't really done that in the games we've seen.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
So IMHO: PvZ >>> TvZ
I'm just teasing, since in both previous expansions Protoss started of poorly and too many people only see the game through nostalgia goggles.
You are right about that.
But what do you think of the MUs, as they are now? To be honest I find the new TvZ with Stim and a-move and throw corrosive biles and a-move rather lackluster. On the other hand I find PvZ better than ever, due to way less FF and Collosi usage, more divers P/Z armies and way more micro from both sides.
In most PvZ games we see now there is no more micro from P than in Hots. A lot of chargelot, archon, immortal timings. The only spellcaster brought to fight is 1-3 sentries. Usually one. Before that there is micro in the harass of whatever opening the Protoss did.
A collosi + stalker based army has way more micro involved.
If the game goes past this point I would agree with you. But it hasn't really done that in the games we've seen.
Chargelot, Archon, Immortal, Pheonix. In my experience this army is harder to manage than Collosi/Stalker. Blink micro is hard, but IMO it is harder to spread Chargelot/Archon, focus fire Immortals on Lurkers and lift Lurkers/Hydras with Phoenix at the same time. But aside from micro, Collosi/Stalkers was a lame deathball, which produced boring games. Firstly because P would camp in his base, getting to the deathball and secondly because engagements were short and lopsided. You either didn't lose any Collosi and just plowed through Zerg army including remax or you lost too many or all Colossi, in which case you couldn't win against the remax army. In LotV the engagements are far less lopsided and there are many smaller engagements through out a single game. There is also much more harass, because Protoss now have the proper tools to do it. Therefore there are hardly any games with turtling and getting to the deathball.
On January 26 2016 23:54 CheddarToss wrote: Well said Nony.
Here is what I think will happen: Z and T will realise that P can't defend fast 3rds or Nexus after gateway only and that P can't mount harass or all-ins as fast, due to needing to have more units and expanding later. Z and T will therefore pressure P to end the game early or play very greedy, to destroy Protoss somewhat later with superior numbers. PvX win rates will drop quite a bit due to this patch. I wouldn't be surprised to see PvZ and PvT at 40% and 45% respectively. Blizzard/DK will realise that the situation for Protoss is hopeless and instead of reworking gate way units (which is harder to do), the next patch will involve a shorter warp gate research time or something equally misguided. Then Z and T will again whine about Protoss bullshit.
Protoss will get demolished and have a low representation. Eventually they will get buffed again and the game will be balanced. Two years from now people will tell stories of the glory early days of the expansion with superexciting TvZs everywhere.
And once again, history repeated itself.
Well, I find PvZ as it is now much better and much more exciting than TvZ. Gone are the superexciting days of MMM vs Ling/Bling/Muta and PvZ is more back and forth and more harass based than ever.
So IMHO: PvZ >>> TvZ
I'm just teasing, since in both previous expansions Protoss started of poorly and too many people only see the game through nostalgia goggles.
You are right about that.
But what do you think of the MUs, as they are now? To be honest I find the new TvZ with Stim and a-move and throw corrosive biles and a-move rather lackluster. On the other hand I find PvZ better than ever, due to way less FF and Collosi usage, more divers P/Z armies and way more micro from both sides.
I think TvZ is solid but worse than previously, unless it goes long when it can become very tense and spread out. PvZ is wild. That's not to say it's bad, but I expect the matchup to evolve drastically and show a completely different face eventually. Therefore I find it hard to evaluate. Protoss players that play defensive and with those double SG strategies seem to get demolished, Protoss players that cross their fingers and pray that the zerg did not build a spire seem to be doing well and it makes for very awesome games. I personally enjoy watching TvP by far the most at the moment if it goes past the early game. At least for me it is refreshing not to see Terran desperation pushes all the time and more replenishable Protoss armies. Whether or not it's fair in this stage of the game I'm not sure, but I think the power of the Liberator in the matchup is exaggerated. At least the Protoss players that get out Tempests on time or aggressively keep liberator numbers down seem to be doing fine.
I actually think TvZ is a bit more exciting in the present. The ultras completely and totally force the Terran hand to advance tech and/or tech swap in the late game. Previously TvZ was just a 20 minute long festival of 4M hoping that one of your drops sneaks by and does good damage or one of your widow mines gets a crazy hit while spreading your bio. It was still an interesting matchup but I prefer the LotV style where the Ultras put a timer on how long 4M is a viable composition (even then most are doing M&M + Tank) until you need to add in more factories or starports to effectively handle ultras.
They forgot to reduce the cost for the cyclone, with the knowledge that you can break the lock on using burrow, transports or moving out of vision with the 1 unit targeted the cyclone becomes entirely a waste on money that could have been better spent elsewise, nobodys making the cyclone because of this!
150gas is too much...
and why wont they bring back 250mm cannon mode for the thor, and revert the silly air priority ai change which causes the thors to be shooting javelin missiles at air instead of using their ground attack that does much more dmg...
Also I agree that Protoss will probably be a tad weak after the PO nerfs. But even if that is the case this is the proper decision in terms of game design. The current state of TvP is pretty bad from a spectating and playing perspective and this will be a move in the right direction. I'm sure if necessary they will receive balance buffs to their later tech units.
On January 26 2016 21:50 rockslave wrote: Best patch ever!
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
TY won that game and he is the terran...don't know what you are talking about and Patience is the rank 1 on Korean GM ladder so he should be a decent enough player.
Watch the whole series. In some games, Patience goes for Adept + Warp prism, in others he doesn't.
When he does, you can notice that TY does everything right and even then he is behind. When Patience goes for other builds, TY outplays him easily.
Hm I think this change is pretty good. It discourages a playstyle that was really hard to pull off. And was probably reason for as many failures as it was for wins. Maybe even more failures at lower levels. Well and more wins for those that know their opponents style well and wouldn't get baited ever. Now we have to see if something else works. Maybe Protoss will have to rely on the sentry again, not the forcefield, but guardian shield. xD
On January 26 2016 21:50 rockslave wrote: Best patch ever!
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
TY won that game and he is the terran...don't know what you are talking about and Patience is the rank 1 on Korean GM ladder so he should be a decent enough player.
Watch the whole series. In some games, Patience goes for Adept + Warp prism, in others he doesn't.
When he does, you can notice that TY does everything right and even then he is behind. When Patience goes for other builds, TY outplays him easily.
That only proves that the only good unit protoss has left are the adepts and now that is taken away. RIP Starcraft, it will be really boring with only 2 races.
Guys, I think I just found the solution to PO and the supposed weakness that would come with the nerf. Because post-nerf, only few overcharges can be cast, and they still last relatively short. Increasing the duration wouldn't help tremendously, either (although it would, definitely), since Pylons are quite fragile and can be targeted down, as David Kim visioned.
So what if, instead of the DPS buff, we just increased its duration quite a bit, and make it be cast on a building with a lot more HP. Like a building that helps with base defense, since it's found at most bases. I don't know... maybe the Nexus...?
Jokes aside, I think the Nexus overcharge may well have been a better option. We shall see, though.
On January 26 2016 21:50 rockslave wrote: Best patch ever!
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
TY won that game and he is the terran...don't know what you are talking about and Patience is the rank 1 on Korean GM ladder so he should be a decent enough player.
Watch the whole series. In some games, Patience goes for Adept + Warp prism, in others he doesn't.
When he does, you can notice that TY does everything right and even then he is behind. When Patience goes for other builds, TY outplays him easily.
That only proves that the only good unit protoss has left are the adepts and now that is taken away. RIP Starcraft, it will be really boring with only 2 races.
That's really short term thinking. If this patch didn't come along, we would have 2 base adept to the end of times. This patch comes, possibly Protoss becomes too weak, other changes come in the future.
Same thing for PO, which is way worse a nerf. Maybe gateway units will get buffed, maybe build times for tech will be shortened... It opens possibilities.
Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
And what about Hydras?
After the patch:
80hp : 22dmg = 4 hits
With 10 + 9:
80hp : 19dmg = 5 hits
This is kind of a big deal. Instead of 10 you would have to have 12.5 (or 13, since you can't make half a unit) Adepts to beat the same number of Hydras.
One other important interaction could be with the Hellbats.
After patch:
135hp : 22dmg = 7 hits
With 10 + 9:
135hp : 19dmg = 8 hits
This could become important, should mech get buffed.
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
Well for one it does influence other scenarios, like versus hydralisks. And in reality it is not as simple as "unit needs X shots to kill Y". Compositions consist of various units, when you change the adept you also change X adept + Y stalker shot relations. Also units are very often not at full health and regenerating abilities like medivacs or queens mess up how many shots you need in a combat further.
-4 damage would surely be quite a nerf in many situations, even if the pure adept shotrelations havent changed.
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
Well for one it does influence other scenarios, like versus hydralisks. And in reality it is not as simple as "unit needs X shots to kill Y". Compositions consist of various units, when you change the adept you also change X adept + Y stalker shot relations. Also units are very often not at full health and regenerating abilities like medivacs or queens mess up how many shots you need in a combat further.
-4 damage would surely be quite a nerf in many situations, even if the pure adept shotrelations havent changed.
I actually had Hydras in mind, too, and of course you are right about compositions. but it still feels pretty bad how a couple of Adepts shred entire Drone lines (and, I assume, Probes as well, after the PO nerf). It may be something worth considering, to make games less volatile.
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
There will always be some unfairness to patches, by that logic we should wait until GSL Code S concludes...
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
There will always be some unfairness to patches, by that logic we should wait until GSL Code S concludes...
If the patch hits on Jan 28 as originally announced, some players will have 1 day of practice with the new balance before a tournament match they already spent weeks practicing for on a different patch. It's certainly not the most opportune timing they're choosing here. Keep in mind, Code A finishes next week.
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
Well for one it does influence other scenarios, like versus hydralisks. And in reality it is not as simple as "unit needs X shots to kill Y". Compositions consist of various units, when you change the adept you also change X adept + Y stalker shot relations. Also units are very often not at full health and regenerating abilities like medivacs or queens mess up how many shots you need in a combat further.
-4 damage would surely be quite a nerf in many situations, even if the pure adept shotrelations havent changed.
I actually had Hydras in mind, too, and of course you are right about compositions. but it still feels pretty bad how a couple of Adepts shred entire Drone lines (and, I assume, Probes as well, after the PO nerf). It may be something worth considering, to make games less volatile.
No, Adepts are supposed to do that and should remain potent harass tools. Zergs have Lings and Mutas, which are excellent at eco harass. Being T1, Lings are readily available. Terrans have a number of options: Marines, WMs, Hellions, which can all be dropped with a medivac and do a lot of eco damage. being T1, Marines are readily available.
Protoss has always needed a harass tool, which is not too high up the tech tree. And Adepts are just that. Nerfing them to the ground will do nothing, but make the Protoss play more campy and deathbally like in WoL and HotS, in other words: much worse.
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.
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.
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.
Ptitdrogo winning Dreamhack was like when Fruitdealer won the first GSL. Incredible win against a race that had nearly a 60% winrate versus his race.
Er PvT is Protoss favored right now lol. Protoss has a winning %.
Btw PvZ isn't in bad shape for toss either. If foreign protosses would realize how strong Phoenix into Chargelot/archon/immortal is, they would realize that PvZ isn't bad at all. But no let's just bitch about balance because I don't want to try something really strong.
That is before this patch. I will say with this patch Protoss will probably need buffed to compensate somewhere.
Drogo has been using Chargelot/archon/immortal since HSC (though without the double stargate opening he'd just kill the zerg before muta's in that tournament). And at DH we saw a lot of Phoenix into Charlot/archon/immortal/HT.
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
There will always be some unfairness to patches, by that logic we should wait until GSL Code S concludes...
If the patch hits on Jan 28 as originally announced, some players will have 1 day of practice with the new balance before a tournament match they already spent weeks practicing for on a different patch. It's certainly not the most opportune timing they're choosing here. Keep in mind, Code A finishes next week.
How do we explain that to INnoVation, who's still got a TvP coming up?
Sorry INno, you have to die to Adepts and miss out on a season of premiers because otherwise it won't be fair to Stork?
I don't think INno will find that extremely fair. And he's the one who actually has a chance of winning a Korean premier, or attending Blizzcon, given remotely good balance.
On January 26 2016 21:50 rockslave wrote: Best patch ever!
PvT needed it a lot, just look at TY x Patience. The lesser player wins if and only if he adept rushes.
PvZ will be hard indeed, but other solutions are needed. PO is boring. The game is not supposed to symmetric. Protoss should be stronger than zerg on less bases, but have trouble expanding as much. Perhaps roach/ravager should be nerfed, not protoss buffed.
TY won that game and he is the terran...don't know what you are talking about and Patience is the rank 1 on Korean GM ladder so he should be a decent enough player.
TY outplayed patience, and patience never went for tempests on the last game (literally a throw). If patience just got 4-6 tempests, TY could have outplayed Patience totally and would have still lost. Guess how patience went rank 1 KR GM? Adept all ins. He said it himself
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.
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.
I agree with everything you said, BUT: do you think that that kind of redesign is realistic at this point? Blizzard didn't try anything along these lines in the beta, which is when they should have experimented with buffing gateway units and making WG a twilight tech upgrade and similar community proposals. I fear that now it's too late. Therefore the best you can expect is buffs along the lines of faster WG research, to bring lost potency to P early game, faster twilight upgrades or reduced build speeds for critical units, like Immortals, Phoenix, etc.
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
Well for one it does influence other scenarios, like versus hydralisks. And in reality it is not as simple as "unit needs X shots to kill Y". Compositions consist of various units, when you change the adept you also change X adept + Y stalker shot relations. Also units are very often not at full health and regenerating abilities like medivacs or queens mess up how many shots you need in a combat further.
-4 damage would surely be quite a nerf in many situations, even if the pure adept shotrelations havent changed.
I actually had Hydras in mind, too, and of course you are right about compositions. but it still feels pretty bad how a couple of Adepts shred entire Drone lines (and, I assume, Probes as well, after the PO nerf). It may be something worth considering, to make games less volatile.
No, Adepts are supposed to do that and should remain potent harass tools. Zergs have Lings and Mutas, which are excellent at eco harass. Being T1, Lings are readily available. Terrans have a number of options: Marines, WMs, Hellions, which can all be dropped with a medivac and do a lot of eco damage. being T1, Marines are readily available.
Protoss has always needed a harass tool, which is not too high up the tech tree. And Adepts are just that. Nerfing them to the ground will do nothing, but make the Protoss play more campy and deathbally like in WoL and HotS, in other words: much worse.
I don't think, actually, that Protoss is in need of additional harass tools. Oracle, DT and Warp Prism suffice, I think, even if they are not T1 units, as you said as well. But note that Medivacs, which make Terran's harasses possible, aren't T1, either. I think the Adept was designed to be a stable Gateway unit that is actually reliable in direct combat, as opposed to Stalkers and, to some extent, Zealots. I reacall DK saying this very thing (at least I think). That's why it got a relatively large HP and decent damage output. Then, of course, the Shade was added, because DK has some weird harass-fetish, apparently, but I don't think that it would have been the primary focus. Moreover, if Adepts are to remain potent harass tools, then the -1 dmg is already a pretty big blow to them, isn't it?
On January 27 2016 01:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so Adepts get a 4% nerf? i guess the 1 point off means it requires 3 shots to kill an SCV instead of 2?
Yes they'll 3 shot scvs and marines, this means it is much more than %4, effectively.
But why not nerf them to 10+9? Then they would 3 shot Probes and Drones, too, without much influence to other scenarios.
Well for one it does influence other scenarios, like versus hydralisks. And in reality it is not as simple as "unit needs X shots to kill Y". Compositions consist of various units, when you change the adept you also change X adept + Y stalker shot relations. Also units are very often not at full health and regenerating abilities like medivacs or queens mess up how many shots you need in a combat further.
-4 damage would surely be quite a nerf in many situations, even if the pure adept shotrelations havent changed.
I actually had Hydras in mind, too, and of course you are right about compositions. but it still feels pretty bad how a couple of Adepts shred entire Drone lines (and, I assume, Probes as well, after the PO nerf). It may be something worth considering, to make games less volatile.
No, Adepts are supposed to do that and should remain potent harass tools. Zergs have Lings and Mutas, which are excellent at eco harass. Being T1, Lings are readily available. Terrans have a number of options: Marines, WMs, Hellions, which can all be dropped with a medivac and do a lot of eco damage. being T1, Marines are readily available.
Protoss has always needed a harass tool, which is not too high up the tech tree. And Adepts are just that. Nerfing them to the ground will do nothing, but make the Protoss play more campy and deathbally like in WoL and HotS, in other words: much worse.
I don't think, actually, that Protoss is in need of additional harass tools. Oracle, DT and Warp Prism suffice, I think, even if they are not T1 units, as you said as well. But note that Medivacs, which make Terran's harasses possible, aren't T1, either. I think the Adept was designed to be a stable Gateway unit that is actually reliable in direct combat, as opposed to Stalkers and, to some extent, Zealots. I reacall DK saying this very thing (at least I think). That's why it got a relatively large HP and decent damage output. Then, of course, the Shade was added, because DK has some weird harass-fetish, apparently, but I don't think that it would have been the primary focus. Moreover, if Adepts are to remain potent harass tools, then the -1 dmg is already a pretty big blow to them, isn't it?
Medivacs are not T1, but they are not a unit you get solely for the purpose of harassing. You get them either way, because they make your army stronger in direct engagements. Now compare that to the Oracle, DT or WP. You don't get any of these units as a Protoss if you don't plan to harass your opponent, because for the same amount of resources you can get more of other units, which are actually useful in large battles.
A stable unit is a unit that is good at straight up engagements and harass. Zealots, Stalkers and Sentries are useful in straight up engagements, but terrible at harass. At least compared to Speedlings and Marines.
The -1 dmg is a big blow, but it is obvious that Terran is weak at that timing (pre combat shield). So it's either that nerf or the armored flag, which would render Adepts useless in PvT.
I think the Adept was designed to be a stable Gateway unit that is actually reliable in direct combat, as opposed to Stalkers and, to some extent, Zealots. I reacall DK saying this very thing (at least I think). That's why it got a relatively large HP and decent damage output. Then, of course, the Shade was added
big mistake to nerf core stats instead of shade IMO
Protoss has always been the gimmicky race and the two expansions have just made that worse
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?
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.
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 think the Adept was designed to be a stable Gateway unit that is actually reliable in direct combat, as opposed to Stalkers and, to some extent, Zealots. I reacall DK saying this very thing (at least I think). That's why it got a relatively large HP and decent damage output. Then, of course, the Shade was added
big mistake to nerf core stats instead of shade IMO
Protoss has always been the gimmicky race and the two expansions have just made that worse
How is the shade a gimmick? In my understanding, a gimmick is something that is only useful when the opponent doesn't expect it. Adepts can always be expected in any MU and are a skill based unit, opposed to a "I hope my opponent screws up" unit, like the DT. So no, Adepts are not gimmicky at all. They scale with patience, micro and the ability to foresee.
In marketing terminology, the term gimmick refers to a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries
something that is not serious or of real value that is used to attract people's attention
gimmick noun
a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade
There are a lot of definitions out there but this
only useful when the opponent doesn't expect it
isn't one of them, actually.
It's another flashy feature that raises the worth of the unit without actually helping its combat strength at all and they nerf combat strength in a major way once again because of it
It's another flashy feature that raises the worth of the unit without actually helping its combat strength at all
But it does increase the combat strength of Adepts, the same way that Stim or Medivac boost does. Combat strength is more than just hp, damage, rate of fire and movement speed.
Ptitdrogo winning Dreamhack was like when Fruitdealer won the first GSL. Incredible win against a race that had nearly a 60% winrate versus his race.
Er PvT is Protoss favored right now lol. Protoss has a winning %.
Btw PvZ isn't in bad shape for toss either. If foreign protosses would realize how strong Phoenix into Chargelot/archon/immortal is, they would realize that PvZ isn't bad at all. But no let's just bitch about balance because I don't want to try something really strong.
That is before this patch. I will say with this patch Protoss will probably need buffed to compensate somewhere.
Drogo has been using Chargelot/archon/immortal since HSC (though without the double stargate opening he'd just kill the zerg before muta's in that tournament). And at DH we saw a lot of Phoenix into Charlot/archon/immortal/HT.
And guess who won DH? Drogo
I was responding to his claim that foreign players apparently don't use zealot/archon/immortal which is wrong (I.E. Drogo used it before Koreans in HSC). He's certainly not the only foreign player using it either. Winning DH or not is really irrelevant to the point.
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
There will always be some unfairness to patches, by that logic we should wait until GSL Code S concludes...
If the patch hits on Jan 28 as originally announced, some players will have 1 day of practice with the new balance before a tournament match they already spent weeks practicing for on a different patch. It's certainly not the most opportune timing they're choosing here. Keep in mind, Code A finishes next week.
How do we explain that to INnoVation, who's still got a TvP coming up?
Sorry INno, you have to die to Adepts and miss out on a season of premiers because otherwise it won't be fair to Stork?
I don't think INno will find that extremely fair. And he's the one who actually has a chance of winning a Korean premier, or attending Blizzcon, given remotely good balance.
How do we explain that to Classic, who's still got a PvT coming up?
Sorry Classic, you have 1 day to prepare for a BO5 with nerfed adepts and overcharge, hope you have fun losing against jjakji?
I don't think Classic will find that extremely fair. And he's the one who actually has a chance of winning a Korean premier, or attending Blizzcon, given remotely good balance.
How do we explain to INnoVation that everyone in Code A has to play on the same balance patch? Really now? Would that need a justification? It's not going to happen, but would it honest to god need a justification to have all 30 matches played on the same patch?
And it's not like TvP is completely unwinnable. Case in point being TY vs Patience. If Inno has a chance of winning a premier given good balance he should have a chance of winning a match given meh balance.
On January 27 2016 03:47 Tenks wrote: I wonder if a Protoss build will emerge like FFE and rush +1 for Adepts and proceed similarly with WP harass while taking a relatively safe third
Doesn't every FFE build die to ravager and/or nydus? And FFE against Terran isn't gonna get good any time soon.
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
On January 27 2016 03:47 Tenks wrote: I wonder if a Protoss build will emerge like FFE and rush +1 for Adepts and proceed similarly with WP harass while taking a relatively safe third
Doesn't every FFE build die to ravagers and/or nydus? And FFE against Terran isn't gonna get good anytime soon.
I honestly haven't seen an FFE attempted TvP in LotV. It may be stronger now that Marauders are a bit nerfed vs cannons. Or it may not work at all.
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...
On January 27 2016 01:42 Wintex wrote: Well, how nice that the remaining Code A matches will have different balance. I hope they play on prepatch or else it'll be unfair for both the protosses and the terrans.
On January 27 2016 03:47 Tenks wrote: I wonder if a Protoss build will emerge like FFE and rush +1 for Adepts and proceed similarly with WP harass while taking a relatively safe third
Doesn't every FFE build die to ravagers and/or nydus? And FFE against Terran isn't gonna get good anytime soon.
I honestly haven't seen an FFE attempted TvP in LotV. It may be stronger now that Marauders are a bit nerfed vs cannons. Or it may not work at all.
There's some builds that will completely murder any forge builds because the cyber core is delayed I think. Especially cyclone cheese with floated barracks.
would love if they would examine swapping the upgrades for the adept. Make the shade ability the upgrade, like blink and charge, and then have the adept's attack upgrade just come standard. I feel like that would make it a stronger defensive/core unit early, and then allow for strategic decision to upgrade for the shade to use in later battles or move from that unit. The shade then comes out later in the game when it is easier to deal with and indirectly nerfs drops/warp-ins too where now they are dancing all over your mineral lines splitting early forces to the point where it is impossible to deal with.
This is not a balance patch this is a design patch, as pure.wasted said.
If anything this fucks balance even more.
But people want a game where Protoss loses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On a serious note, people want Protoss to defend "with units" because it's "fair" and they don't want the outcome of the game to be decided by whether or not one player decides to do a certain cheese that wins "every time".
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 05:08 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 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.
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.
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."
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
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.
There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic. The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it. Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology. All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games.
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
My thoughts on this are that I'm glad Blizzard is finally doing something to improve the quality of the match ups. It appears as if TvP is the primary priority with this patch and the aim is to adjust the early game advantage Protoss has over Terran that has made the match up very problematic despite supposed balance. I am worried for PvZ as win rates indicate that it is Protoss favored so Protoss perhaps will require some buffs to benefit it in PvZ, but it will be difficult to ascertain what would be the best way to do it without creating problems in TvP again.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
Too true. I'm getting sick of people whining about matchups and they have done absolutely nothing to change their builds or adapt. These changes may be reasonable, but it still pisses me off how in retrospect it is blizzard catering to the whiny terran players. Is TvP the only not balanced matchup? Does zerg not exist anymore?
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.
There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic. The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it. Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology. All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games.
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
Games like Age of Empires with many different kinds of resources, huge maps, and different "Ages" offered much more "macro" decision making like what you're talking about. Do you specialize in harvesting one resource and trade? Do you tech up as quickly as possible or do you build a huge army? Do you literally turtle to victory ? (wonder). All that in addition to the specific battle strategies, units built, scouting, etc.
SC BW and SC2 are more fun though. Simplicity = more action. And people's attention spans have decreased drastically over the years. The most popular games in the world all involve you controlling one unit and constantly doing things with it. Even of the two big Mobas, the more popular one has shorter cooldowns and more spammable abilities.
On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote: The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this.
Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest.
It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness.
I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well.
On January 27 2016 07:32 dinn74 wrote: 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.
It won't stop harass heavily, but you will need 30% less marines for it! Maybe you'll have enough money to build a CC, or to send a medivac across the map. Or maybe they will be sad because an adept-only composition won't be as strong and safe after a failed all-in. I think this patch will help a lot.
On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote: The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this.
Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest.
It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness.
I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well.
I agree. And figuring out the viable strategies, perfecting them and then innovating the metagame is a huge part of the fun of SC2. However, I do think there would be massive room for improvement and the developers have taken decisions that on a fundamental level make it hard for certain strategies to exist.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
Too true. I'm getting sick of people whining about matchups and they have done absolutely nothing to change their builds or adapt. These changes may be reasonable, but it still pisses me off how in retrospect it is blizzard catering to the whiny terran players. Is TvP the only not balanced matchup? Does zerg not exist anymore?
I wonder if Blizzard decided to name the patches "design patches" people will actually understand the diference.
On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote: The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this.
Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest.
It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness.
I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well.
I agree. And figuring out the viable strategies, perfecting them and then innovating the metagame is a huge part of the fun of SC2. However, I do think there would be massive room for improvement and the developers have taken decisions that on a fundamental level make it hard for certain strategies to exist.
I'm not saying Blizzard made the best decisions every time, but keep in mind that it is extremely hard to keep the game fresh with new expansions (new units), while at the same time keeping the balance and increasing (or not decreasing) strategic diversity. Of course new expansions aren't a necessity from design point of view, but they are from an econommic perspective.
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.
There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic. The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it. Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology. All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games.
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
Games like Age of Empires with many different kinds of resources, huge maps, and different "Ages" offered much more "macro" decision making like what you're talking about. Do you specialize in harvesting one resource and trade? Do you tech up as quickly as possible or do you build a huge army? Do you literally turtle to victory ? (wonder). All that in addition to the specific battle strategies, units built, scouting, etc.
SC BW and SC2 are more fun though. Simplicity = more action. And people's attention spans have decreased drastically over the years. The most popular games in the world all involve you controlling one unit and constantly doing things with it. Even of the two big Mobas, the more popular one has shorter cooldowns and more spammable abilities.
in Age of Empires 2 though, as far as I know, there is a dominant strategy/build order and not that much choice in ways to win the game? Tech choices don't seem to have as much importance and variety, one of the reasons being because you can defend rather easily with workers+town center / towers and generally it's not so accurately balanced/designed, big difference in win chances per civilization too. Still like it though, for me it is a game of speed first and foremost. Supreme Commander I have only played (online) before the expansion, there was good potential for strategy but the balance for midgame=>lategame and lategame in general was completely broken. I was told it got better with the expansion but surprised to hear that the lead developper said that, are we talking about Chris Taylor ? Mobas tend to have their large scale game very mapped out even by design, I guess necessary to allow balance with such a huge number of completely different heroes to pick from. I think in mobas there is more knowledge to gather but less skill. To play it well is first about knowing about what you should do / knowing all items and all spells and stats, and then individual 1-unit (that is 2-3x more complex than any unit of a RTS [except WC3 heroes], but still just one unit) micro and team tactics/cooperation skills on top of that. In BW there is a fine amount of strategy I feel, it always matters and I wouldn't say the game is all focused on tactics/winning specific battles for short term goals, it is both.
Necessary changes, but oh god will this require adjustment. If Protoss manages to win a major before Z and possibly T are nerfed to meet the level of Protoss, I will be shocked.
This was a design patch. DKim decided that 4Adept + Prism ladder + 4Adepts warped in was just too easy/fast/skillless of a way to end TvPs. TvP is a good matchup outside of that build. Yes P won't have a giant econ lead anymore from the 4/Prism/4 ladder play but that was precisely what has been breaking the T Korean Pro scene.
This is just like at the release of HOTS where Blizz broke the 4 Helbat drop that was guaranteeing T an economic lead all game in TvP.
Hello everyone. We just wanted to let you know that we intend to release all the changes currently on the test map minus the Spore Crawler change in this week's balance patch.
These are the specific changes: 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
All of this seems pretty logical, the PB nerf is good because it will only nerf the initial impact of the first few Vipers, once you have 4 - 5 of them PB will still be lethal, although I wonder how much we want to nerf things that discourage mass air play, Phoenix balls are already strong and Liberators seem to fill a bunch of roles both atg and ata simultaneously, I guess only time will tell.
I like the PO change, Protoss should still have to invest in static defense or combat units to secure expansions and should be vulnerable to attacks if playing greedy which currently, they don't feel very vulnerable.
Adept change looks like it only effects TvP, I play Zerg so it's meaningless to me lol
So what exactly is the problem which korean pro said zerg struggle agains protoss ? can people point out ? I didn't see Dkim said about problem beside "zerg struggle agains protoss".
On January 27 2016 09:57 seemsgood wrote: So what exactly is the problem which korean pro said zerg struggle agains protoss ? can people point out ? I didn't see Dkim said about problem beside "zerg struggle agains protoss".
i have heard they have struggle vs Phoenix openers into mass zealot immortal archon attacks
With toss already being weak (vs zerg) before this patch for the bottom 90% of players or so... I wonder if blizzard should look at buffing toss units/buildings that pros dont use...
Like make cannons stronger (175/175 would be a start, and they would still get smashed by terran), and make colls better (maybe better range).... That in theory should help make the statistics closer without hurting the 'top koreans'.
i think it would be nice to reintroduce them, the interaction would be similiar to tankivacs vs Ravagers, trying to phase while the ravager bile is coming in
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
Too true. I'm getting sick of people whining about matchups and they have done absolutely nothing to change their builds or adapt. These changes may be reasonable, but it still pisses me off how in retrospect it is blizzard catering to the whiny terran players. Is TvP the only not balanced matchup? Does zerg not exist anymore?
I wonder if Blizzard decided to name the patches "design patches" people will actually understand the diference.
Personally, I think not.
I said the exact same thing earlier in this thread. This isn't about balance, it is about design concerns. There is a difference.
If you want to balance a scale, the last thing you do is take weight off the side that had less to begin with.
I'm with the people that think the Adept was overpowered and that Pylon Overcharge is garbage. But if those thing are buoying Protoss, who have a terrible win rate versus Zerg while going even with Terran, what do people expect is going to happen? Do they really think the game will be more balanced by making the weaker side even weaker in PvZ?
I don't care if it is the map pool or the units or whatever that is the causing the issue, it just should get fixed, and this patch fixes nothing when it comes to balance. This fixes designs problems.
In fact, this patch will likely make balance worse.
On January 26 2016 21:23 Mozdk wrote: And alligulac balance is not the end all stats of truth. Just so you know.
We need the game to be balance at the top level. Not in gold league.
You do know that Aligulac presents statistics from the top right, not gold league, right?
Note that this yields information about metagame balance near the top of the skill ladder, and is not to be confused with (although likely correlated to) actual game balance throughout the whole player population.
It always gets me when people talk about how Aligulac being all of ladder, when it isn't. When you are balancing a game, you want to track winrates. Which is why this patch isn't about balance, and shouldn't be called that. This is a patch to fix a game design flaw and make Protoss less reliant on the gimmicks that are the Adept and Photon Overcharge.
But Aligulac is the end all of statistics when it comes to winrates. Sure other stuff matters, which is why it also tracks performance differences, which I believe is even more important. Those two statistics are very powerful and creating logical balance arguments independent of them is nearly impossible.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
It's just aligulac argument while we don't see Zerg crushing everything on tournament, but rather lagging to have the same results than T and P.
Just look at the win rate of the best Kor : Soo, Dark, Life, Hydra, Rogue, Byul worst non miror match up are vs P, while Hero, Classic, Dear, Trap, Zest, Stats best non miror MU are vs Z.
The APM argument, for me it seems that the game now balance. P could be GM with 110 APM on HOTS. Also, the count of APM have changed, and having + 50 APM compare to HOTS is nearly the same APM than HOTS (maybe just +10).
But your arguments prove exactly what i'm saying : You complain you can't no longer turtle and get the deathball, and that you need to harass, multitask, soft harass, more APM.
You just prove, it's a learn to play issue rather than a balance issue. You're stuck with your old habits, playing the old way, and refusing to learn the new way, but rather complains "need more APM, and no longer turtle : obviously underpower race...."
A balance issue, is : "I've watched thousands of VOD, replays from pros, doing my best to find the way to counter that, but even them are failing, and have no clue to counter this, every Pro Player have trouble with this"
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
It's just aligulac argument while we don't see Zerg crushing everything on tournament, but rather lagging to have the same results than T and P.
What?
Check out the performance difference chart Aligulac has, probably the most ignored and misunderstood tool we have for balance, because who wins a tournament really doesn't matter much. Fruitdealer and Nestea won GSL's when Zerg was very underpowered.
Here is how the performance difference chart works:" The performance difference chart shows the approximate difference between actual performance as evidenced by results and predicted performance by rating."
In other words, let's imagine you have Protoss player and a Terran player who both normally have a score of 1000 in TvP, and thus each win 50% of their games against each other. Now, if there is a patch, meta change or map pool update, that favors Protoss, we'll see that because the Terran players score will go 1050 and the Protoss will go to 950. Therefore, the Terran player will be playing 50 points better than normal, while the Protoss 50 points less than normal.
Therefore a Terran who once had a rating 1000 will be equal to a Protoss player who once had a rating of 1100. We see those changes immediately in the performance difference chart, it controls for "hot streaks from one or two singularly great players."
By look at that chart, you'll realize that we haven't seen a performance rating that problematic since July 2014, as Protoss is at -52 right now.
Unsurprisingly, the trends in performance difference chart follows the win rate chart quite closely. This not only should strengthen your faith in the win rate chart, but also in the performance difference chart itself.
The statistics align because they are correct and strong, not because they weak. They should not be ignored.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
Do people realise that single digit ZvP win rates would require Z to win 91 out of a 100 games against P? It seems farfetched.
Note that this yields information about metagame balance near the top of the skill ladder, and is not to be confused with (although likely correlated to) actual game balance throughout the whole player population.
It always gets me when people talk about how Aligulac being all of ladder, when it isn't. When you are balancing a game, you want to track winrates. Which is why this patch isn't about balance, and shouldn't be called that. This is a patch to fix a game design flaw and make Protoss less reliant on the gimmicks that are the Adept and Photon Overcharge.
But Aligulac is the end all of statistics when it comes to winrates. Sure other stuff matters, which is why it also tracks performance differences, which I believe is even more important. Those two statistics are very powerful and creating logical balance arguments independent of them is nearly impossible.
Just try.
Winrate is a very weak statistic though imo. Representation of a race is already a better one, although also skewed in its own way.
On ladder the winrate is supposed to move roughly to the 50%, which makes anything based on ladder game winrates flawed. Also for tournaments you get weird situations: If DH started at the RO16, the conclusion based on winrates is that Terran is really overpowered. In addition the impact of a strong player is much larger than that of a weak player. The strongest player brings a long string of wins to his race. The weakest player loses a few games and is out.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
It's just aligulac argument while we don't see Zerg crushing everything on tournament, but rather lagging to have the same results than T and P.
Check out the performance difference chart Aligulac has, probably the most ignored and misunderstood tool we have for balance, because who wins a tournament really doesn't matter much. Fruitdealer and Nestea won GSL's when Zerg was very underpowered.
It's actually people like you that understand it the least because you think it actually contains useful data. Aligulac ratings are inherently wonky. ByuN being the best player in the world? Please. I mean maybe, I love ByuN, but that's probably just an artifact of his tournament participation more than anything. That graph will tend to return to the mean given sufficient time. You can have an absurdly imbalanced period over a long time and eventually everything will look just fine. Then what happens when we release a patch that balances the game? A massive correction would show up as ratings start fixing themselves. However you would interpret that as imbalance.
We're very grateful David Kim doesn't balance the game as you would. If in the face of glaring balance problems people started switched races en masse and a race all but disappeared from the highest level tournaments as long as aligulac showed ~50% win rates you would be standing at the gates of Blizzard, chart in hand proclaiming that all is well, like a starcraft developer version of Baghdad Bob. Aligulac has been used to defend periods of imbalance in the past, like blink in hots. It is not something to be used as the end all be all of balance. You have to open your eyes to things beyond win rates in an arbitrary aggregate of games.
Wow Bronzeknee, way to be a zealot for your race despite everyone and their mother explaining to you why your cited Aligulac statistics do not show much. This is like the fourth thread where you just hammer away with the same number, despite other people pointing out what it doesn't cover, why some games in there aren't convincing to others, why the methodology isn't accepted (even by the maker of the graph), and while later evidence provides different information. Please try to engage other people in an earnest fashion.
On January 26 2016 19:22 ETisME wrote: These are big nerf to protoss, surprised nothing is buff to compensate other than the damage. Protoss has to reconfigure their builds with this nerf
Protoss will have around 30-40% winrate against terran and probably single digit against zerg. The glory days of starcraft are over.
Do people realise that single digit ZvP win rates would require Z to win 91 out of a 100 games against P? It seems farfetched.
This patch is necessary to fix the most critical problems right now in the game.
I hope the next patch focus more on solving some design issues with the game and to make mech more viable by doing the following:
1. Remove tankivac
Tankivac has destroyed TvT. Positioning means little now and doom drops are too dominant. This change would balance mech vs bio. 2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ.
3. Give Tanks a bonus damage vs shields.
Bonus damage vs shields is the best way to improve mech in TvP without making tanks too strong in TvT or TvZ.
4. Nerf Air
Decrease Liberator ground damage. Decrease BroodLord damage. Make Tempest cost 6 supply. This change makes it easier to move out with mech instead of having to turtle if opponent switches to air.
5. Improve ground units anti-air Make Hydras do bonus damage versus air. Make Thor do the same damage vs all air units. Ground battles with some air support is much more interesting to play and watch compared to mass air battles.
I think these five steps would make mech viable. They would improve ground mech and decrease turtling since you would not be forced to turtle in your base if your opponent go mass air. Mass air balls would not be viable since air would be weaker and ground anti-air would be stronger. You would still need to expand a lot due to how the LotV economy works.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ.
Void rays too. It's funny that phoenix's and oracles are better to spam when you have early stargates vs ravagers.
Also kinda odd that ravagers lose the armored tag in the first place
On January 27 2016 23:56 MockHamill wrote: 2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ.
We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? We only have problems with certain rushes, not as much with the the unit, right? We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, onwards we go to the ravager rushes: +150% damage from immortals +100% damage from marauders +66% damage from voidrays, +166% damage from charged voidrays +66% damage from unsieged tanks, +43% damage from sieged tanks +40% damage from stalkers ...
Sounds fair, only the ravager rushes are going to be affected by that, right? And the patch after we deal with 2-3rax reapers: barracks cost doubled. Won't change terran at all, that's only gonna affect that specific rush.
We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light, -2% damage on average. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right?
1.5x less dmg against marine, scv in the parts of the game where they were considered powerful
--
If Armored ravager doesn't work then stats can easily be changed. That's a design thing (should it be more vulnerable to X units and less vulnerable to Y?) rather than a final statement of balance. Right now it's a little weird to see Ravagers way more vulnerable to zealot/phoenix than immortal / VR. More vulnerable to marines than marauders assuming they stay alive.
If you think adept nerf only affect the units damage output by %4, you are either an unsuccessful troll or something else I don't want to state in this environment.
how funny ppl always come with aligulac stats, even though they are outdated and were from decemeber where ppl were not used to play ravager roaches into lurkers, the statistic for January arent even out yet, they will be out at 3feb? i think
I would like to see a morph required on Roach Warren for Ravagers. Initially available on Hatch Tech (Now it's a hard commitment, timing delayed and prone to scouting). If that doesn't do the trick (it probably will doe said trick) you can require Hive for it as well.
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote: 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.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
It's just aligulac argument while we don't see Zerg crushing everything on tournament, but rather lagging to have the same results than T and P.
Just look at the win rate of the best Kor : Soo, Dark, Life, Hydra, Rogue, Byul worst non miror match up are vs P, while Hero, Classic, Dear, Trap, Zest, Stats best non miror MU are vs Z.
The APM argument, for me it seems that the game now balance. P could be GM with 110 APM on HOTS. Also, the count of APM have changed, and having + 50 APM compare to HOTS is nearly the same APM than HOTS (maybe just +10).
But your arguments prove exactly what i'm saying : You complain you can't no longer turtle and get the deathball, and that you need to harass, multitask, soft harass, more APM.
You just prove, it's a learn to play issue rather than a balance issue. You're stuck with your old habits, playing the old way, and refusing to learn the new way, but rather complains "need more APM, and no longer turtle : obviously underpower race...."
A balance issue, is : "I've watched thousands of VOD, replays from pros, doing my best to find the way to counter that, but even them are failing, and have no clue to counter this, every Pro Player have trouble with this"
except that design-wise, as a protoss, it's more mechanics demanding with all the lurker and ravager AOE. That sucks.
On January 27 2016 23:56 MockHamill wrote: 2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ.
We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? We only have problems with certain rushes, not as much with the the unit, right? We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, onwards we go to the ravager rushes: +150% damage from immortals +100% damage from marauders +66% damage from voidrays, +166% damage from charged voidrays +66% damage from unsieged tanks, +43% damage from sieged tanks +40% damage from stalkers ...
Sounds fair, only the ravager rushes are going to be affected by that, right? And the patch after we deal with 2-3rax reapers: barracks cost doubled. Won't change terran at all, that's only gonna affect that specific rush.
Ravagers are pretty much a cookie cutter unit right now, which they just shouldn't be.
On January 27 2016 23:56 MockHamill wrote: 2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ.
We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? We only have problems with certain rushes, not as much with the the unit, right? We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, onwards we go to the ravager rushes: +150% damage from immortals +100% damage from marauders +66% damage from voidrays, +166% damage from charged voidrays +66% damage from unsieged tanks, +43% damage from sieged tanks +40% damage from stalkers ...
Sounds fair, only the ravager rushes are going to be affected by that, right? And the patch after we deal with 2-3rax reapers: barracks cost doubled. Won't change terran at all, that's only gonna affect that specific rush.
Ravagers are pretty much a cookie cutter unit right now, which they just shouldn't be.
Care to explain why a unit shouldn't be cookie cutter?
While I want adepts to stay competitive vs bio, saying the -1damage is 1.5x less damage against marines is not really telling the whole story IMO
It is true if you play monobattles and only engage with pure adepts, but considering there's other units that can give the final blow to a marine that has taken two adept shots (stalkers, zealots, sentries) the result should not be that bad for adepts. At least I hope so.
We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light, -2% damage on average. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right?
1.5x less dmg against marine, scv in the parts of the game where they were considered powerful
On January 28 2016 00:18 Laserist wrote: If you think adept nerf only affect the units damage output by %4, you are either an unsuccessful troll or something else I don't want to state in this environment.
It's always hard to respond to such comments, because you either didn't read the entire post, you didn't understand it or for some fucked up reasons you consciously chose to ignore this part: We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal.
On January 28 2016 00:12 Cyro wrote: If Armored ravager doesn't work then stats can easily be changed. That's a design thing (should it be more vulnerable to X units and less vulnerable to Y?) rather than a final statement of balance. Right now it's a little weird to see Ravagers way more vulnerable to zealot/phoenix than immortal / VR. More vulnerable to marines than marauders assuming they stay alive.
Chances of blizzard redesigning units: 0.1%. And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn.
On January 28 2016 00:30 Salteador Neo wrote: While I want adepts to stay competitive vs bio, saying the -1damage is 1.5x less damage against marines is not really telling the whole story IMO
It is true if you play monobattles and only engage with pure adepts, but considering there's other units that can give the final blow to a marine that has taken two adept shots (stalkers, zealots, sentries) the result should not be that bad for adepts. At least I hope so.
And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn.
There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts
So the fact that some so-called pro gamers and casters of this game fail to read basic patch notes is now an argument for never changing the Ravager? I don't get what you are trying to say here...
Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn.
There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts
You just kind of expect any derivative of the roach to be armored, since roaches don't die.
Once you now, it's no big deal. I don't think it's strange.
Next someone's going to complain that stasis ward has a light tag
its a bit strange.
what Blizz needs is some new lore about some kind of special Carapace organic/veggie material that grows on Banelings and Ravagers. some crap about how its the next biological evolutionary step in the Zerg species or some crap.
This extra strong coating of Carapace is extra strong with unique protective properties making the zerg animal resistant to BOTH types of attacks that specialize in damaging Light AND armored units.and therefore and it requires 2 morph stages to develop because its so strong.. blah blah blah.
then it all makes sense.
did you know that Marauders are inside Firebat suits and that the Firebat had to be discontinued because too many of them were setting themselves on fire ?
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
On January 28 2016 01:53 TentativePanda wrote: What was the spore crawler change?
They wanted to reduce the bonus damage to biological (to +5 I think?) to make mutas better. Which would have been redundant since they're already great in ZvZ.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
On January 28 2016 03:33 JokerAi wrote: way to low nerf Adept Damage decreased from 10 (+13 light) to 10 (+12 light)
Don't be deceived by the low number. It will have a big impact in early game TvP where adepts will now 3 shot marines and SCVs instead of 2 shot them. They will go back to normal once upgraded to +1, but the goal of this was to make adepts weaker in early game TvP, but keep them intact during the mid game, late game for TvP and for PvZ.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
You said, and I quote, "it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does." You were wrong. It is not impossible to come up with a sci-fi explanation for the way Armored works.
I agree that there is no need to come up with one in the first place.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
You said, and I quote, "it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does." You were wrong. It is not impossible to come up with a sci-fi explanation for the way Armored works.
I agree that there is no need to come up with one in the first place.
How exactly can you claim that I am wrong? To argue against that, you made up a sci-fi ( a make beleive story) rooted in nonsense, using "scientific sounding words" and then claim it makes sense. I really don't understand how anybody can just make something up and then claim this totally make sense.
(Like really. In material science if a material shatters in impact, it is too brittle to fracture the other material. If it is tough enough to fracture another material, it would be better to create a solid penetrator with an explosive shot to penetrate a greater amount of armour and damage the internal body. Why would damaging the armours integrity cause damage anyways? What happens once the armour has been destroyed? You would be wanting to damage the target, not the armour. In real life any design that can catastrophically damage armour would be better designed to penetrate the armour and destroy the target of flesh and bones.)
Anyways this is offtopic, and there is no discussion to be had with someone who can so easily claim apples are oranges.
The reasoning behind dealing bonus damage vs armored is simple: armored units tend to have more HP. Instead of thinking that armored units are taking more damage from attacks with bonus damage vs armor, flip it around and think of it as armored units are taking less damage from attacks not dealing bonus damage vs armor. For example, the marauder has more than twice the HP of a marine. So a marauder will tank more marauder shots than a marine will, despite the fact that they receive twice the damage. Bonus vs armor simply reflects the fact that marauder shots are still effective vs armored targets, while marine shots are not.
You could turn the whole system around, with equivalent results in some regards, by giving all armored units less HP, remove all bonuses vs armor type attacks, and give all units without this bonus in the first place a decreased damage output vs armor. This would make sense, but it messes everything up because not all units are dealing the same amounts of damage. So it doesn't scale very well. For example, you would have to decrease the HP of an ultralisk by a ton to compensate for the removal of bonus vs damage attacks. But this just leaves it vulnerable to high damage output shots, like siege tank shots. Also, some abilities does fixed damage, like snipe. So with this system either snipe would have to deal enormous damage vs ultralisks, or miniscule damage vs marines to account for the HP changes.
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
On January 28 2016 09:37 cheekymonkey wrote: The reasoning behind dealing bonus damage vs armored is simple: armored units tend to have more HP. Instead of thinking that armored units are taking more damage from attacks with bonus damage vs armor, flip it around and think of it as armored units are taking less damage from attacks not dealing bonus damage vs armor. For example, the marauder has more than twice the HP of a marine. So a marauder will tank more marauder shots than a marine will, despite the fact that they receive twice the damage. Bonus vs armor simply reflects the fact that marauder shots are still effective vs armored targets, while marine shots are not.
I don't think that is quite right, the marauder costs more than twice the money of the marine and that is simply reflected in the stats. There are other quite fragile armored units in the game for their cost as well, like the siege tank, the stalker or most armored fliers. And vis-verca there are quite tanky unarmored units in the game, like the zealot, the adept, the archon or the hellbat.
I think the original idea behind armored was probably that armored units have base armor, while originally the only light unit with a base armor was the zealot (?), + Show Spoiler +
probably because it was that way in broodwar and it was necessary against marines and zerglings
. That should make armored units good against low damage per shot units like the basic units marine, zergling, zealots. The underlying design idea probably was that to beat those armored units you should rather bring heavy hitting units and the +vs armored was a way to create such units, without breaking them against light units. Also the transition from the broodwar system with explosive/concussive damage probably played a role for the actual designs of the units, but note that what I wrote above is especially true for the new SC2 units or changed units. E.g. Corruptors with 2 armor and slow, heavy hitting attacks to combat the BC and the Carrier, with their (from broodwar changed) multiple fast attacks. Thereby making the corruptor very tanky against those units, while "ignoring" their armor. Or the roach with its original 2 armor specifically designed to combat zergling/zealot/marine + Show Spoiler +
if you do custom tests with the a 2 armor roach, it trades pretty much perfectly with the marine supply/supply and cost/cost; i think such considerations were the reason for the "weird number" of exactly 145 health they have
But I think what happened is that armored units armor was gradually toned down in the alpha and beta and today there are very few units with more than 1 natural armor. Or they overestimated the effect of 1 armor to begin with. Whatever the reason, the eventual result is that many armored units have a lot of strong hardcounters but draw very little advantage from their base armor.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
The way this light vs. armored thing works is, unit HP is not a strictly defined measure of punishment a unit can take, but actually a holistic measure of a wide variety of factors, including natural armor. (Like HP in D&D doesn't actually mean a 10th level character can take 10 hits to the chest while a 1st level character can take 1. Some of those 10 might be dodged, blocked, etc.).
Therefore, units with bonuses against armored simply do a better job at piercing natural armor, and do more apparent damage than units without the bonus, when compared to a "normal "attack.
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
How does this even happen? The schedules are well known.
good for korean pros to have that much time in advance to know on which patch they play. Not like Code S qualifiers are important or so.
They announced it. They should look at tournament schedules before setting patch dates. They should not change the time of the patch hours before it rolls out. Unless they let the participants in GSL/SSL know they weren't going to actually roll out the patch long before announcing this publically, it's entirely possible they've been practicing for their matchups on the balance test map for the past week and getting completely screwed by this.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
because its a game these stupid explanations are part of the fun. Marauders are wearing Firebat suits. the Firebat was discontinued when too many Firebats were lighting themselves on fire.
Blizzard needs to buff the cyclone as well. Right now the only use for the cyclone is to annoy or troll opponents. Where is the unit is going to make mech viable again?
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
Swarmhosts were balanced too
Yeah, I know. I'm not arguing that it is fine the way it is. I'm just sick of the endless whining. The game is ugly, but Terrans win just as much as Protoss. Apologizing to Innovation is therefore nothing more than QQing.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
Swarmhosts were balanced too
Yeah, I know. I'm not arguing that it is fine the way it is. I'm just sick of the endless whining. The game is ugly, but Terrans win just as much as Protoss. Apologizing to Innovation is therefore nothing more than QQing.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
Swarmhosts were balanced too
Yeah, I know. I'm not arguing that it is fine the way it is. I'm just sick of the endless whining. The game is ugly, but Terrans win just as much as Protoss. Apologizing to Innovation is therefore nothing more than QQing.
Please stop. I didn't say PvT isn't balanced right now.
INnoVation is a player who does not deal well with dumb early game builds, this bad meta hits him especially hard.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
But he was screwed anyway, maybe he was preparing a strategy that only worked post patch and now that its delayed his practice was wasted.
Changing the date the very same day was a really shitty move.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Inno plays after the patch goes live.
I got all bent out of shape over nothing. :o Must have misread something. Thanks!
On January 28 2016 11:01 pure.Wasted wrote: Oops sorry INno. If only we could have foreseen Adepts being out of this world insane, maybe you wouldn't have to sit out half of this year's GSLs.
But of course I ask too much. No one could have foreseen that.
Please stop. PvT is balanced right now. You might not like the way it is balanced, but according to the numbers it is.
Swarmhosts were balanced too
Yeah, I know. I'm not arguing that it is fine the way it is. I'm just sick of the endless whining. The game is ugly, but Terrans win just as much as Protoss. Apologizing to Innovation is therefore nothing more than QQing.
Please stop. I didn't say PvT isn't balanced right now.
INnoVation is a player who does not deal well with dumb early game builds, this bad meta hits him especially hard.
that is the risk you take when you play an RTS game with racial diversity less than 6 months after its release date. its not like LotV is the first ever game to have big issues right after its release. and its not like any one was blind-sided. any one could get into the beta.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
Well, but GSL at least guaranteed Impact that they'd play his ZvT on a custom map with the pre-patch swarm host, so everything was fine, right?
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
there was only 1 zerg playing swarm host so it wasn't a big deal ;p ;p
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
Well, but GSL at least guaranteed Impact that they'd play his ZvT on a custom map with the pre-patch swarm host, so everything was fine, right?
Except after the patch the custom map didn't work and he had to play on the new balance anyway. I vividly remember TB going apeshit in the LR thread over that. Funny that they care this year, isn't it?
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
Well, but GSL at least guaranteed Impact that they'd play his ZvT on a custom map with the pre-patch swarm host, so everything was fine, right?
Except after the patch the custom map didn't work and he had to play on the new balance anyway. I vividly remember TB going apeshit in the LR thread over that. Funny that they care this year, isn't it?
Well, it's always good when they care about those little things which can be quite big for the particular players.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
there was only 1 zerg playing swarm host so it wasn't a big deal ;p ;p
because of what has gone down in previous years with patches... govern yourself accordingly and take responsibility for your decisions to play this game.
the cries of "this is so unfair" have the vibe of a 13 year whining to their parents about some house rule.
On January 28 2016 20:12 Sapphire.lux wrote: Changing the date is very silly. You want to remove known abusive strategies right away.
Agree with this.
I'm happy for the PB nerf in ZvZ (two Vipers can decimate an entire Mutalisk flock in seconds) but I'm a bit worried if Liberators are going to dominate the match up in TvZ now, late game when there is 10+ Liberators you really need PB to kill them quickly and they are usually already split up to cover more ground.
On January 28 2016 20:12 Sapphire.lux wrote: Changing the date is very silly. You want to remove known abusive strategies right away.
Agree with this.
I'm happy for the PB nerf in ZvZ (two Vipers can decimate an entire Mutalisk flock in seconds) but I'm a bit worried if Liberators are going to dominate the match up in TvZ now, late game when there is 10+ Liberators you really need PB to kill them quickly and they are usually already split up to cover more ground.
Time will tell, adjustments can always be made.
Can there ever be a such thing as too much freedom??
On January 29 2016 01:47 ZackAttack wrote: It's pretty crazy that they would change the date for the patch. It's even weirder that the reason is basically, "oops, forgot about code S".
Maybe they didn't forget about it. Maybe they thought it would be fairer to patch right away, but then players/teams approached them and asked them to postpone it.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
Funny, didn't stop them from implementing the SH patch right before a Code A matchday last year.
there was only 1 zerg playing swarm host so it wasn't a big deal ;p ;p
I remember TB crying in the thread about his poor guy since he was practicing for SH play though
On January 29 2016 01:47 ZackAttack wrote: It's pretty crazy that they would change the date for the patch. It's even weirder that the reason is basically, "oops, forgot about code S".
Impact has to play on new patch: HOW DARE THEY NOT CHANGE THE DATE Inno has to play on old patch: HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DATE
On January 29 2016 01:47 ZackAttack wrote: It's pretty crazy that they would change the date for the patch. It's even weirder that the reason is basically, "oops, forgot about code S".
Impact has to play on new patch: HOW DARE THEY NOT CHANGE THE DATE Inno has to play on old patch: HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DATE
The issue here would be that players have no time to practice on the new patch if the patch goes live before GSL. Now they will have couple of days to adjust and figure out ways to play the game.
I think David kim need some good macro protoss play in mid,late game vs terran that why he doesnt say anything after early game. Even classic using adept and end game in blink of eyes lol..... But recently i saw protoss did very good vs terran in both later stage in tournament. But doesnt matter we need to see korean play.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
People like you are just beyond ignorant to the state of the game if you think LotV protoss is weak.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
People like you are just beyond ignorant to the state of the game if you think LotV protoss is weak.
I'm just confused on the whole "Protoss weak" thing, at least from watching Proleague and GSL (and other Korean level play) Protoss doesn't seem to be struggling against Zerg really at all and obviously is doin just fine vs. Terran.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
People like you are just beyond ignorant to the state of the game if you think LotV protoss is weak.
Ok smart guy, let's wait for it ok? Remember my words and your words. I'm telling you, protoss is doing ok because of MACRO advantage. The adepts menace (requires cyclone and viking/lib) early on, and the PO security is allowing it on PvT/PvZ.
On January 30 2016 06:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: Why can't they give a time...
Cause it's probably at different times in different regions, I suspect. Also, things might go wrong and take longer than usual and people might get worked up over that.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
People like you are just beyond ignorant to the state of the game if you think LotV protoss is weak.
Ok smart guy, let's wait for it ok? Remember my words and your words. I'm telling you, protoss is doing ok because of MACRO advantage. The adepts menace (requires cyclone and viking/lib) early on, and the PO security is allowing it on PvT/PvZ.
Protoss late game options are undisputedly the strongest. I really cant comprehend how you can not realize this.
The amount of heavy splash / AOE damage is ridiculous not too mention how tanky units are. If you cant make it to this stage of the game then you really dont know how to play the game.
Terran has to prepare for your all ins whether theyre coming or not because there are so many of them its actually not possible to scout whats coming. Just spin the wheel of protoss all ins and you'll come out on top most of the time.
God forbid protoss players will actually have to work for their wins.
Dont come at me with your bronze league logic, its not welcome anywhere near a balance discussion.
On January 26 2016 13:45 StarscreamG1 wrote: Now everybody will notice how weak lotv protoss is. Without the economic lead PO and Adepts were giving, liberayors and ravagers will demolish protoss.
People like you are just beyond ignorant to the state of the game if you think LotV protoss is weak.
Ok smart guy, let's wait for it ok? Remember my words and your words. I'm telling you, protoss is doing ok because of MACRO advantage. The adepts menace (requires cyclone and viking/lib) early on, and the PO security is allowing it on PvT/PvZ.
Protoss late game options are undisputedly the strongest.
As a random player I am totally down with these changes. I can understand that truth hurts sometimes, but some of you protoss players were just not as good as the ladder made you believe. So back to work on your 'strategy' skills if you want to maintain your positions.
On January 30 2016 09:48 oErMeNs wrote: As a random player I am totally down with these changes. I can understand that truth hurts sometimes, but some of you protoss players were just not as good as the ladder made you believe. So back to work on your 'strategy' skills if you want to maintain your positions.
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
The truth is that Protoss should make an army to secure a 3rd base just like Zergs and Terrans. Aggresion counters greed which wasn't the case against Protoss. I know you're hurt, but dry your tears and start making some units instead.
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
The truth is that Protoss should make an army to secure a 3rd base just like Zergs and Terrans. Aggresion counters greed which wasn't the case against Protoss. I know you're hurt, but dry your tears and start making some units instead.
Oh, OK, then Zerg should make X production buildings, just like Protoss and Terran, and not just plant one and build unlimited number of units. Let's see how many units Zerg can amass then. In this case I would be more than happy if MsC were removed. Especially if Terrans had no reactors but also had to build double the amount of baracks, factories and starports just like Protoss.
See what I did there? In an asymmetrical RTS different races are different. Protoss shouldn't do anything like Terran/Zerg.
Edit:
And since when does aggression counter greedy Zergs? Is there a way to prevent a Zerg from going 3 hatch before pool? Nope, in LotV Zerg is pretty much guaranteed a greedy start into the game. And that is OK as long as Protoss and Terran have mechanisms to keep up. And Protoss' mechanism was the PO. I don't think Protoss can keep up with the current patch.
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
The truth is that Protoss should make an army to secure a 3rd base just like Zergs and Terrans. Aggresion counters greed which wasn't the case against Protoss. I know you're hurt, but dry your tears and start making some units instead.
Okay then tell me how I can afford a 3rd in a timely fashion to not be outmacroed on some maps (Prion or Central for instance) when I have to make additionnal buildings and make units that cost double any of yours. There is a reason PO bandaid was introduced. You cannot split the only 2 units you have when you have to be greedy to be able to keep up with the other races' macro.
Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
I feel like this was a long overdue patch and there was more than enough evidence to bring this out before dreamhack/major code A games... but guess david kims just trying to be careful and scared of preemptive patching like all the fails it caused in that past like the with the widow mine...
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
If you've said something like ghost/liberator it might have made some sense, but BCs? Thors? Ravens? These unit suck in current LotV.
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
If you've said something like ghost/liberator it might have made some sense, but BCs? Thors? Ravens? These unit suck in current LotV.
It's understandable that Parkfarku would think that way. Look at all the highest level TvZs, those units are dominating that match up. Oh wait, Korean Zergs find mid-game most challenging versus Terrans. Ignore this poster's ignorance and you'll be better off.
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
The truth is that Protoss should make an army to secure a 3rd base just like Zergs and Terrans. Aggresion counters greed which wasn't the case against Protoss. I know you're hurt, but dry your tears and start making some units instead.
User was warned for this post
I dunno about you mang, but I definitely don't make an army to secure my third.
And the truth is what? That PvZ was Protoss favoured and that the PO nerf was therefore needed?
The truth is that Protoss should make an army to secure a 3rd base just like Zergs and Terrans. Aggresion counters greed which wasn't the case against Protoss. I know you're hurt, but dry your tears and start making some units instead.
User was warned for this post
Because Zerg's don't go 3 hatch before pool or anything....
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
If you've said something like ghost/liberator it might have made some sense, but BCs? Thors? Ravens? These unit suck in current LotV.
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
If you've said something like ghost/liberator it might have made some sense, but BCs? Thors? Ravens? These unit suck in current LotV.
I did say Libs.
Yeah you got lucky by mentioning one unit that is actually good (if not a little OP in the absence of PB).
What is the exactly the role of Mutas in PvZ in LotV? They do not resemble the nimble harass unit from BW the least bit. What is the reasoning behind them being stronger than anything Protoss have on the ground?
On February 01 2016 11:49 CheddarToss wrote: What is the exactly the role of Mutas in PvZ in LotV? They do not resemble the nimble harass unit from BW the least bit. What is the reasoning behind them being stronger than anything Protoss have on the ground?
Can I do a "How to construct an argument on TL 101" with this? First, ask a question that you are implicitly answering yourself later on. Then, outline how something is different to how it was in Broodwar, which unlike to more reasonable forums like TL_BW is an argument in itself here. At last, let out your inner Hitler and blow something completely out of proportion.
On February 01 2016 11:49 CheddarToss wrote: What is the exactly the role of Mutas in PvZ in LotV? They do not resemble the nimble harass unit from BW the least bit. What is the reasoning behind them being stronger than anything Protoss have on the ground?
Can I do a "How to construct an argument on TL 101" with this? First, ask a question that you are implicitly answering yourself later on. Then, outline how something is different to how it was in Broodwar, which unlike to more reasonable forums like TL_BW is an argument in itself here. At last, let out your inner Hitler and blow something completely out of proportion.
1) Yeah maybe, but I'm frustrated with the insane focus on Adepts, while the Zerg Adept gets 0 attention and has been ruining PvZ since forever, and even more so since LotV beta. 2) Comparing with Broodwar is good. We as a community should have done it more often. Broodwar is tried, tested and proven to be an awesome game. SC2 is a good game, but jury is still out whether it is a truly great game. 3) So you are saying that Protoss have a chance at winning without responding with mass Phoenix or going all-in? No? So how is what I'm saying "At last, let out your inner Hitler and blow something completely out of proportion"?
On January 31 2016 12:22 parkufarku wrote: Terran is undisputedly the strongest late game race, with the most cost effective supply options, and static defensive options ( good luck trying to block through several PFs that are being repaired and supported by turrets)
tempest ht and broodlord viper is far superior than everything terran can make.
lol?
Mass BCs, Ravens, Thors, Liberators will demolish anything that Protoss / Zerg throw at them.
If you've said something like ghost/liberator it might have made some sense, but BCs? Thors? Ravens? These unit suck in current LotV.
I did say Libs.
Yeah you got lucky by mentioning one unit that is actually good (if not a little OP in the absence of PB).
I got lucky...what? If anything you're the one lucky abusing a race that is stronger than others at the moment and having Protoss nerfed (wut?) while Terran isn't getting nerfed. Enjoy the free wins.
Sorry to bump this, but after 2 weeks of code S and 3 weeks of proleague, I find many of these comments hilarious.
I can't wait for the next thread about how Zerg are weak in LotV (cause, you know, 0/4 qualified in the first 3 groups of GSL) I hope it will be as entertaining as this one.
Also, can someone create a ZergMasterRace account, please? Or CamembertZerg?
on a more serious note I think it's important to look back at the shit we said, and see how some threads can be clueless and misleading sometimes - it must be horrifying to be new to the game and come here to read this kind of stuff...
EPT
