EPTOn March 14 2016 07:57 Cyro wrote:
Can probes get glowsticks too? :D
Can probes get glowsticks too? :D
Only pink ones because the player selected Protoss.
A Change to the Oracle - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ve5pa
United Kingdom252 Posts
Only pink ones because the player selected Protoss. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On March 14 2016 07:51 Elentos wrote: But every game of Starcraft plays out differently, 1 game is never enough to judge an entire matchup. Imagine someone watched Heart of the Swarm and saw 1 TvZ. And by sheer coincidence it was ended by a roach/bane all-in. From that they concluded the matchup wasn't worth their time and did something else whenever TvZ was on. They formed their opinion on incomplete information and missed all the good stuff. I know that, but people don't have the patience to give something another chance, when there's plenty of other stuff out there. Just an observation how quickly people jump the ship these days.(I don't exlude myself from that) | ||
|
Elentos
55456 Posts
On March 14 2016 07:47 Cyro wrote: A lot of people have not seen much spectator PvP because of the poor state of protoss representation. WCS world championship had 35 zvz's and 7 pvp's. Ting open had 56 zvz's and 0 pvp's. as someone who watches sc2 & plays protoss, i probably know zvz better than my own mirror matchup - what hope is there for somebody who doesn't play protoss to have a good understanding of it? GSL is at 22 ZvZs, 14 PvPs. S2SL is at 18 PvPs, 10 ZvZs (with at least 4 more PvPs on Thursday). Proleague will have 3 PvPs tomorrow. So it's not like it's completely impossible to watch PvP. On March 14 2016 07:57 Cyro wrote: Can probes get glowsticks too? :D They could get a flashlight. Also warp prisms should get disco lights. | ||
|
Ve5pa
United Kingdom252 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:01 Elentos wrote: GSL is at 22 ZvZs, 14 PvPs. S2SL is at 18 PvPs, 10 ZvZs. Proleague will have 3 PvPs tomorrow. So it's not like it's completely impossible to watch PvP. I don't think you get that many Poenix wars in Korean PVP, maybe it's a European ladder thing? Why it would be interesting to get Korean input on this issue, my bet is they would say better micro wins. Fair play. | ||
|
Elentos
55456 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:05 Ve5pa wrote: I don't think you get that many Poenix wars in Korean PVP, maybe it's a European ladder thing? Why it would be interesting to get Korean input on this issue, my bet is they would say better micro wins. Fair play. I don't remember all of the games of course, but I think you're right and the number of actual phoenix wars (both players committing to the unit) in Korean leagues might be 5 or lower. Would be interesting to know how common it is in EU/NA and why it's more common (if it is). | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20275 Posts
So it's not like it's completely impossible to watch PvP It's not, but it's probably the least played matchup by a wide margin and if you've caught some leagues and not others or not been watching for a lot of hours per week (i've only seen a few S2SL games) then you may have seen almost none of them | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On March 14 2016 04:52 TheoMikkelsen wrote: I understand your concerns here, and for the most part phoenix wars would be identical to what it is currently - though likely in much less frequent numbers. So while there can be mixed opinions on the phoenix wars, I think it is objectively true that phoenix wars should not be a prefered strategy due to the potential it has with countering oracles. Protoss players can still play phoenix as much as we like. This was one of the main things I still was not sure about before suggesting writing the article to Morrow, but it occured to me that this does not actually improve Phoenix-vs-Phoenix explicity, assuming there are problems, but it reduces the frequency that it is played, and for players who dislike the style will have more means to play ground. It depends on what happens in the ultra early game, as far as probe scouting and possibly adept scouting, but at least when I go phoenix, I'm thinking that I must send out the first one to scout and the second one can be produced in time to defend against oracle. If I need 2 phoenixes to kill the oracle in a decent amount of time, then my build order will have to fundamentally change if I want to avoid fatal damage. And that's what we're trying to do is have build orders that can avoid fatal damage? So that a "build order win" is not an actual win but rather just an advantage leading into mid game? But yeah, I think the phoenix vs phoenix thing has been overstated here. What this change really affects the most, imo, is 1 base oracle vs expand. If you look at the games from Katowice, mana actually lost twice with these builds on ruins of seras, to pilipili and huk, and he lost another game where stalker buff vs oracle would have helped (vs huk on prion terraces i think). And yet he was actually neutral, saying that he feels like stalkers are currently sufficient. I sort of agree with him. I got pretty scared for his build order when I saw how he was losing to 1 base oracle, but after analyzing the replays I felt there were indeed some things he could have done better to secure a win. Still a tough thing to defend. Huk was positive on the change, but seemed focused on the phoenix vs oracle side of it. Pilipili didn't comment. I've been adamant from the start of LotV that expanding in PvP is not guaranteed to be a safe thing. At best on most maps, there will always be one build that can blind counter you, depending on what exactly you choose to build after expanding. So I don't know if people want stalkers buffed against oracle so it's easier to play an econ opening. Or maybe they just want to be able to open oracle harass without having to go all-in? This doesn't really help with that. If both players get a stargate, and one goes oracle and the other goes phoenix, they're both going to end up going phoenix anyway. I mean that's half of the interaction this change is focused on. Phoenix worse against defending oracle and stalkers better. The stalkers better part seems really boring to me. It's just helping out the players who insist on fast expanding. The phoenix vs oracle part is supposed to encourage people to choose oracle more, but only if they've scouted an enemy stargate, otherwise they're going to want to go oracle even less cuz stalkers wreck them. IDK. Doesn't seem like the right solution. And if one of the goals is to avoid phoenix vs phoenix.. well, if you open oracle against phoenix, you still have to go phoenix after that oracle. You hope that the oracle can sneakily get a few kills so that being down 1.5 phoenix doesn't hurt you that much, but you still have to proceed to play phoenix vs phoenix. This change will help the oracle get more kills and then it's phoenix vs phoenix time. Still, no one wants to open oracle vs phoenix. If you do, then you're purposely playing a risky style, which is part of what we're trying to minimize right? It's forcing riskiness for both players. And no one will want to open oracle against stalkers anymore. | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:53 NonY wrote: It depends on what happens in the ultra early game, as far as probe scouting and possibly adept scouting, but at least when I go phoenix, I'm thinking that I must send out the first one to scout and the second one can be produced in time to defend against oracle. If I need 2 phoenixes to kill the oracle in a decent amount of time, then my build order will have to fundamentally change if I want to avoid fatal damage. And that's what we're trying to do is have build orders that can avoid fatal damage? So that a "build order win" is not an actual win but rather just an advantage leading into mid game? But yeah, I think the phoenix vs phoenix thing has been overstated here. What this change really affects the most, imo, is 1 base oracle vs expand. If you look at the games from Katowice, mana actually lost twice with these builds on ruins of seras, to pilipili and huk, and he lost another game where stalker buff vs oracle would have helped (vs huk on prion terraces i think). And yet he was actually neutral, saying that he feels like stalkers are currently sufficient. I sort of agree with him. I got pretty scared for his build order when I saw how he was losing to 1 base oracle, but after analyzing the replays I felt there were indeed some things he could have done better to secure a win. Still a tough thing to defend. Huk was positive on the change, but seemed focused on the phoenix vs oracle side of it. Pilipili didn't comment. I've been adamant from the start of LotV that expanding in PvP is not guaranteed to be a safe thing. At best on most maps, there will always be one build that can blind counter you, depending on what exactly you choose to build after expanding. So I don't know if people want stalkers buffed against oracle so it's easier to play an econ opening. Or maybe they just want to be able to open oracle harass without having to go all-in? This doesn't really help with that. If both players get a stargate, and one goes oracle and the other goes phoenix, they're both going to end up going phoenix anyway. I mean that's half of the interaction this change is focused on. Phoenix worse against defending oracle and stalkers better. The stalkers better part seems really boring to me. It's just helping out the players who insist on fast expanding. The phoenix vs oracle part is supposed to encourage people to choose oracle more, but only if they've scouted an enemy stargate, otherwise they're going to want to go oracle even less cuz stalkers wreck them. IDK. Doesn't seem like the right solution. And if one of the goals is to avoid phoenix vs phoenix.. well, if you open oracle against phoenix, you still have to go phoenix after that oracle. You hope that the oracle can sneakily get a few kills so that being down 1.5 phoenix doesn't hurt you that much, but you still have to proceed to play phoenix vs phoenix. This change will help the oracle get more kills and then it's phoenix vs phoenix time. Still, no one wants to open oracle vs phoenix. If you do, then you're purposely playing a risky style, which is part of what we're trying to minimize right? It's forcing riskiness for both players. And no one will want to open oracle against stalkers anymore. I saw the Katowice games, but I do not think I want to argue from their games at this time, and I agree things could´ve been done better. For the record, I do not necessarily dislike phoenix vs phoenix personally, I just prefer ground vs ground. Right now I think there is a slightly stronger incitament to go stargate rather than ground. This is my official opinion if otherwise is interpreted in the article. With that being said, the goal here for me is not to hurt phoenix vs phoenix, but decrease the frequency of it. And if not that then the potential frequency of it. This is not to hurt oracle vs phoenix or phoenix vs phoenix, but to promote the ability to remain safer while playing ground, especially defensive ground vs oracle. So your point is not actually related to the goals of what we want with this article. If anything we are actually buffing the oracle versus phoenix, and I think that is a good thing. If we compare the current state of PvP with the state where photon overcharge was 25 - many people wouldve considered this a great state for PvP, despite expansions being quite easy to take like you said. However, now that PO is 50 energy, a stalker buff versus oracle would only make expansions that slightly amount easier, and we still saw a quite large percentage of games being aggressive in PvP even when overcharge was at 25 energy. So the goal here is to not take away the great aggressive action we see now, but to slightly reduce the strength of the oracle. I do think it is slightly too strong versus ground, and I think 2 stalkers doing 28 damage is not quite going to be as strong as the 25 overcharge version, namely because of the other advantages 25 photon overcharge had when it came to defence, but also because it in and of itself may defend oracles better. If it does or does not it is still close, and I think this change would hit the compromise we are looking for between the ability to secure and expansion and to be aggressive against an expanding player, depending on map and style of course. And when PvP has improved so much on the mid and lategame with the micro and action from disruptor, though it has had its´ own share of critique, I still think seeing a promoted economic PvP is always good despite that not necessarily being the goal of this article. So to conclude - The main goal is to improve the Stalker versus Oracle situation. However it is a bonus that potential issues with Phoenix vs Phoenix also will be extensively fixed and also Phoenix vs Oracle. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
Is there any argument at all for how this will improve the game? It sounds like just "I prefer to play this style and this pesky build is causing me problems. Let's weaken that build so I can play the way I want." There's nothing interesting about putting stalkers in a mineral line to ward off oracles. It's boring gameplay. And nothing new will come of it. The players who like to expand and defend against oracles by putting stalkers in their mineral lines will have their win rates increase slightly. That's all. | ||
|
Aegwynn
Italy460 Posts
By the way, anyone else thinks revelation is actually an op skill? It is really annoying to have a tagged army for a whole minute. The worst part is there is no counter play. It is so fast and high range, it is basically free vision | ||
|
PtitDrogo
France162 Posts
In general in the strictly opening stage of the game oracle is not a problem, you can have enough defense and it will not do much initially. It's just that it is a little bit too good in the midgame since it allows you to do a lot more than what the defending stalker player can (to be very broad but still truthful). Also when a player have an oracle fly into a phenix, he doesn't "go phenix himself", he lose the game, and that's pretty stupid. | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
On March 14 2016 10:44 NonY wrote: When you say it's mainly about stalker vs oracle, are you saying it's mainly about 1 base oracle vs 2 base stalker? Like you want someone to be able to expand and have their scouting denied and still be able to efficiently defend against 1 base harass and all-ins? Is there any argument at all for how this will improve the game? It sounds like just "I prefer to play this style and this pesky build is causing me problems. Let's weaken that build so I can play the way I want." There's nothing interesting about putting stalkers in a mineral line to ward off oracles. It's boring gameplay. And nothing new will come of it. The players who like to expand and defend against oracles by putting stalkers in their mineral lines will have their win rates increase slightly. That's all. While 1 base oracle vs 2 base stalker is also strong, that is more bound to the regulation that the oracle guy is likely allining, as otherwise he could open the oracle with an expansion behind it. In this case it is more clear how the defending player can proceed to win the game and/or secure himself a more mathemathically equal position as any player would expect to happen in such games with the highest level of execution. However, due to the strength of the oracle most likely requiring 3 stalkers per mineral line during a temporary phase to which the oracle player can secure a lead (ptitdrogo does in this case talk about taking a fast 3rd, skipping mothership core etc.) -- these are the issues we are talking about while it still can be difficult to defend the oracle. Of course if nothing but the oracle is present, the defending player still needs to deal with limited scouting information if say he opens 1 gate gas expand into stalkers, and in this case he needs to prepare for allins, voidray switch, voidray/immortal switch and other things. It can be difficult to secure his own 3rd base and it is likely a strongly microed oracle can secure a probe kill here and then while still having a lot of value in the midgame. You are choosing to ignore the arguments rather than listening to them, and I feel this because I do not see you addressing the arguments. I can provide more if deemed necessary, but the main argument was that the oracle was not underperforming when photon overcharge was at 25 energy, and that 25 energy photon overcharge will not equally or less replace stalkers doing 40% more damage to the oracle. You may also include the opinion of many top pro gamers, and since we are talking about a mirror-matchup, the preference of the majority of pro-players should empower this case. (While I am normally against this form of argumenation.) But it is just a fact to me that the oracle right now is slightly overperforming, at least overperforming to the extent that this change would roughly stabilize the problem. And yes it is oracle vs ground, of course. Not versus phoenix or other things. And it is not just 1 base oracle versus 2 base, it is oracle play in general, as the guy opening oracle versus the guy playing defensive expand will have a larger advantage on information that the defending player can not catch up on in time. While I am not saying you just "win" games because of the oracle, it still provides with smaller but crucial advantages throughout the course of many games. Likewise, if oracle took more damage from stalkers, the oracle would still be strong. Stalkers in mineral lines would be exactly the same with or without the change. The question is whether we would want stalkers to happen more, or at the very least if stalker openers would not seem disadvantageous versus the oracle. So if the oracle is still strong after a change like this then I am afraid you will still have to see boring stalker vs oracle. However if we are wrong, then you should be happy and no longer see stalkers in mineral lines defending oracles. A win-win sitaution for you I would say. And speaking of arguments, I could say exactly the same thing about your position. Why is it us, who just wants a certain playstyle to work, and not opposite? I think I roughly agree with ptitdrogos position mentioned above. While it is true that an oracle with sufficient probe kills himself can get himself in a good position versus phoenix, it stills seems to mostly depend on the roulette situation (phoenix actually finding the oracle and the oracle dodging the phoenix) too much. Even if this change goes through, big maps like seras etc. can have a phoenix take out the oracle before it even arrives. And to clarify my position as what otherwise could be interpreted in the article: I am not necessarily arguing that phoenix wars are "luck" based, but I do think it is very volatile - meaning engagements typically requires actions made in windows down to 1 or 2 seconds. Lower phoenix count and you want to disengange? This decision is almost instantaenous to make and if failed you likely lose. There are many good things about phoenix-vs-phoenix, but I do think the problems right now outweigh the good things to an extent where we should prefer the option to go stalkers (versus oracles) rather than phoenixes versus oracles. It just happens to be a debatably positive side-effect that phoenix wars would happen less due to the increased option of going stalkers versus oracles. This does not mean that I do not think a map or two should value phoenix play over stalker play with reference to Blizzards intention of improving strategic diversity per map, but right now I think there is a superior preference with stargate and I would argue this goes against this very goal. Now if you would like my other arguments on the subject, I would advise you to actually read my statement in the article which you can find by clicking on my yellow face. (Non-stereotypically spoken.) | ||
|
fireforce7
United States334 Posts
| ||
|
EnderSword
Canada669 Posts
| ||
|
InfidiumX
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On March 14 2016 03:56 stuchiu wrote: Tell me why a CC cant land on a burrowed ling hten. every command centre has a basement, duh. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
Flattening the stalker AA damage to 14 does the exact same thing (a nerf to oracles in PvP), but also helps stalkers vs phoenix (so it might end the phoenix wars) and vs mutas. It sounds like a plain better solution. | ||
Ackee
Sweden11 Posts
 | ||
|
Rail_sc2
Russian Federation205 Posts
| ||
| ||
