EPTI'm seeing a lot of the same arguments used to justify not nerfing broodlord infestor. The argument that protoss will be saved due to Phoenix play reminds me of when Mvp won IEM due to ravens and zergs said not to nerf anything since the Raven meta needed time to settle.
January 2016 Aligulac balance report - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
I'm seeing a lot of the same arguments used to justify not nerfing broodlord infestor. The argument that protoss will be saved due to Phoenix play reminds me of when Mvp won IEM due to ravens and zergs said not to nerf anything since the Raven meta needed time to settle. | ||
|
dyDrawer
Canada438 Posts
The point is that we don't know what map design is required in this meta. Back in WoL, we learned that maps must be designed so that Protoss can FFE. Later on, maps must be designed so that Protoss can hold a Stephano style roach max. Maybe in today's meta, a map must have a backdoor expansion? I don't know. But I'd say change up the map pool before we jump to any conclusions and make any hasty changes, since both Terran MUs seem OK atm (altho I think Protoss is still favored in PvT). | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20345 Posts
One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A). Could you post/link these? PvZ has always been quite map dependant | ||
|
Hotshot
Canada184 Posts
Seems there are several ways toss could have been buffed without effecting the top 1% while helping the bottom 99% who are having issues. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On February 05 2016 04:23 plogamer wrote: Did you even read Scarlett's post? Scarlett's post reflects the state of the meta - protoss favouring blinkstalker/disruptors over the new korean PvZ meta of stargate harass into chargelot/archon/immortal. I was clearly speaking about PvT. On February 07 2016 09:14 dyDrawer wrote: One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A). The point is that we don't know what map design is required in this meta. Back in WoL, we learned that maps must be designed so that Protoss can FFE. Later on, maps must be designed so that Protoss can hold a Stephano style roach max. Maybe in today's meta, a map must have a backdoor expansion? I don't know. But I'd say change up the map pool before we jump to any conclusions and make any hasty changes, since both Terran MUs seem OK atm (altho I think Protoss is still favored in PvT). People keep saying this over and over and over. So why haven't the maps changed? Obviously maps affect balance greatly, but that doesn't mean maps have to change in order to solve a balance problem. And SC2 better not need every map to have a backdoor expansion. If that is the case, then just start the game on two bases, which honestly Blizzard should have done long ago after showing a complete inability to balance the early game (which led them to speed through it with the new economic system in LOTV). Either way, Blizzard is clearly unconcerned about PvZ, despite anything they've said. Actions are what matter. On February 07 2016 10:05 Hotshot wrote: I still find it odd how toss was double nerfed with no compensation even tho the statistics show they are behind in pvz. Makes me wonder if blizzard was looking at other statistics, or maybe they simple do not care? Seems there are several ways toss could have been buffed without effecting the top 1% while helping the bottom 99% who are having issues. Blizzard misnamed their "Balance Reports" and the "Balance" section of their patch notes. The fact is, they are releasing Game Design Reports and Game Design changes. The changes they make are clearly not correlated to win rates. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On February 07 2016 10:05 Hotshot wrote: I still find it odd how toss was double nerfed with no compensation even tho the statistics show they are behind in pvz. Yeah, they don't even talk about it. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the updates. Blizzard probably has its own stats though, so I am wondering if they are showing different patterns, or if they just ignore the stats and try to figure things out by averaging over all the biased pro-feedback. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
| ||
|
PPN
France248 Posts
| ||
|
dyDrawer
Canada438 Posts
On February 07 2016 09:29 Cyro wrote: Could you post/link these? PvZ has always been quite map dependant Well it's on the Liquipedia page for Code A statistics. I'll post it here: ZvP Dusk Towers: 3-6 (33.3%) Lerilak Crest: 5-2 (71.4%) Orbital Shipyard: 2-6 (25.0%) Prion Terraces: 4-1 (80.0%) Rak'Shir: 2-0 (100%) These are the 5 maps I'm talking about. On February 07 2016 10:18 BronzeKnee wrote: People keep saying this over and over and over. So why haven't the maps changed? Obviously maps affect balance greatly, but that doesn't mean maps have to change in order to solve a balance problem. And SC2 better not need every map to have a backdoor expansion. If that is the case, then just start the game on two bases, which honestly Blizzard should have done long ago after showing a complete inability to balance the early game (which led them to speed through it with the new economic system in LOTV). Either way, Blizzard is clearly unconcerned about PvZ, despite anything they've said. Actions are what matter. I'm all for a buffing Protoss in some way or another, either by maps or by a balance change. My only concern with balance changes is how it would impact the Terran match-ups, and maps are a strong tool in balancing especially PvZ, seeing how it is the most heavily influenced match-up. As for the backdoor expansion, that's just an example. I don't think we can pinpoint exactly what Protoss needs in terms of map design against Zerg right now. Why haven't the maps changed? That I cannot say. This is a question only David Kim can answer. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On February 07 2016 12:36 dyDrawer wrote: Well it's on the Liquipedia page for Code A statistics. I'll post it here: ZvP Dusk Towers: 3-6 (33.3%) Lerilak Crest: 5-2 (71.4%) Orbital Shipyard: 2-6 (25.0%) Prion Terraces: 4-1 (80.0%) Rak'Shir: 2-0 (100%) These are the 5 maps I'm talking about. That's not enough games to say anything really. To spot even a 40-60 imbalance, you need a hundred games to even see indications, much more if you want reliable calls. We don't have even 10 games on any of these maps in code A. Not sure if aligulac have data bt map. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20345 Posts
| ||
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
In the end, despite the numbers, due to meta changes blizzard should take their own perception of imbalance into account, since waiting 6 months for the meta to stabilize is a bad idea. I think the real problem is figuring out what is the issue with the matchup, for PvT it was quite clearly the adept harass, for ZvP its not clear. edit: but its better to do small changes for now. Specially since the map pool is clearly zerg favoured. The matchup could be absolutely fine. | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sqQDDPw.png) I wonder if anyone has been keeping track of the race %'s, that would be interesting to see too. I just screen cap'd what I saw 5 minutes ago | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20345 Posts
I think the real problem is figuring out what is the issue with the matchup, for PvT it was quite clearly the adept harass, for ZvP its not clear. Since Legacy beta toss has been playing PvZ on some strong units and super powerful overcharge to expand more aggressively as needed for legacy - without it, you're playing more uphill in general because the econ you'll have in a safe game is lower. Not that much lower but you can feel the difference in safety every game. The maps are also different than what they used to be - some naturals and thirds in the pool are way wider open than has previously been acceptable without OP mothership core. You can make or break PvZ by changing the natural and third base | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On February 07 2016 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely. Stating "we don't know what we don't know" is not a reason to do nothing about what we do know. The metagame is always changing. I don't think we don't know what is wrong in PvZ either. We do know. Ravagers are quite strong, Lurkers and Ultralisks incredibly strong, Parasitic Bomb is still very powerful, Abduct (which no one seems to need to use anymore) is still present to tear Disruptors and Colossi out of Protoss out of deathballs once those other issues are fixed as is Blinding Cloud (to go with the new Ultralisks and Cracklings). And of course, Protoss really has to open Stargate or Muta switches are deadly. And perhaps late game Muta switches with Vipers for Parasitic Bomb could very well be deadly too. I'm not saying all of that needs to be nerfed, or even any of it. What I am saying is that Zerg has a plethora of options that can work very well versus Protoss, and due to the larva mechanic and the ability of Zerg to remax on whatever they want, it means that Protoss has to run a very well rounded composition to stop all of these options. And the power Protoss units of the past were never well rounded (ie the Colossus and Sentry), they were just really good in certain scenarios. Right now, Zerg is winning and having fun with Roach/Ravager/Hydra/Lurker compositions with Muta switches so much, they sometimes don't even need to go beyond that and often don't except for Ultralisks. And that is a pretty A-move composition, as much as Colossus/Stalker/Sentry ever was. Worse, the best Protoss response seems to be the well-rounded ultimate A-move composition, Immortal/Archon/Zealot/Pheonix... the way to fix the matchup is give Protoss some parity, bring back the old Colossus to start, and do something about Abduct, because with Lurkers and Ravagers, the shoe is on the other foot. Protoss needs help reaching out to pick off units, Zerg doesn't. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20345 Posts
bring back the old Colossus to start Those damage nerfs were actually a huge deal. Over 1.5x less damage in some circumstances with no compensation for the faster pace of legacy or removing most of chrono boost which both hurt colossus play a lot anyway | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
It is the same with Abduct, it is a binary ability, either it pulls the opposing unit or it is killed or feedbacked/emped. If it was too easy to kill or feedback/emp, then it would be worthless and then not used. So it is strong and therefore counters the Colossus too hard in my opinion. The game is better without binary game design. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On February 07 2016 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: As long as it looks good at the highest level, I'm fine with how the game is. Which seems to be the case from what I've seen in Korea - perhaps with a few possible alterations that might need more time to be figured out. I think Protoss is still very favored vs Terran in the early-midgame, but it has to be that way because they'd get rolled lategame. So that sort of balances out, but might not necessarily be fun to play for either side. We'll see where it goes. Similar for TvZ. I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely. Well the funny thing is that the highest level is GSL and it has its own 2 maps :-) They removed Ulrena and Central Protocol(I think). Which are IMO broken as fuck. Which kinda screws the balance stats for other tournaments & ladder  | ||
| ||
