|
On April 04 2016 01:04 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once  . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. Take it like a man
I've played now 27,700+ games since 2011.
I always check my opponents deal after I play them.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but erratic and inconsistent is how I would describe many peoples' league history.
From Masters to platinum then to silver, then up to Gold, then...... anything, lower to higher.
Firstly though, this probably describes the time a person has for a video game, of course. Given
people more likely have other things happening in their lives. Secondly, I'd look at the history in light of
what Patch era it was, and what was happening in the meta, maps.
Maybe the more accurately descriptive group to look at is those players who consistently hover at least at Diamond.
Those who maintain a certain skill level through practice.
|
On April 04 2016 04:09 Ape_Island wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 01:04 insitelol wrote:On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. Take it like a man I've played now 27,700+ games since 2011. I always check my opponents deal after I play them. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but erratic and inconsistent is how I would describe many peoples' league history. From Masters to platinum then to silver, then up to Gold, then...... anything, lower to higher. Firstly though, this probably describes the time a person has for a video game, of course. Given people more likely have other things happening in their lives. Secondly, I'd look at the history in light of what Patch era it was, and what was happening in the meta, maps. Maybe the more accurately descriptive group to look at is those players who consistently hover at least at Diamond. Those who maintain a certain skill level through practice.
for me, i've been consistently in plat (well, pretty low plat, i still lost to golds lol) for like most of 2015, then LotV comes and then i skyrocket to diamond by doing mass reaper every single game
|
huge nerf on the liberator , not sure how that would turn out to be, also don't see the thor changes makes much difference in terms of making the thor useful against non light armored air units.
|
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
|
I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what
Terran has never been more represented in master league since 2010. So your personal story is not something that has statistically support.
Personally I hadn't played Sc2 for 1½ years and was like mid-high master before I quit, and got back to masters in LOTV after 60 games in LOTV so I can't relate to your problems.
|
Who here thinks DK put more effort into the April 1 update than this one?
|
I do.
"The reason why we are unsure about Mech is because we can’t quite locate the exact reason Mech struggles." - Very good joke Dayvie.
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
It's not everything zerg has. It's everything terran has too.
When protoss plays the cancer style fast 3 bases with adepts and prisms, and builds a adept/immo/stalker/sentries army with a huge eco lead (because he takes his third when you're barely finishing your factory), and has enough money to jamm double upgrades... Stalkers aggro the liberator fire (and can fight them pretty decently too), while adept/immo with guardian shield absolutely MAULS terran bio.
I'm all for a liberator nerf, really, but without counterpart, it'll just make TvP a big fat stincking gateball/immo fest.
|
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
The immortals were problematic since day 1 in WoL. Zerg has never had a good answer on the ground against them besides old Swarm Hosts. They are one of the main reasons why Broodlord/Infestor, mass muta and Swarm Host turtle styles had/have to be as powerful as they were/are.
PvZ has always had shitty designed balance with Protoss having way to powerful ground vs ground armies and their opponent taking to the skies - and it's not that different in TvP. Every lategame Z/TvP has always revolved around avoiding Protoss armies or excessive use of air units, be it medivacs, broodlords, vipers, vikings or liberators.
It's not really a balance question though to be honest. Protoss needs to be overpowered on the ground by design, because none of their powerful stuff can shoot up - and as equalizer their anti-air techs are specialized and expensive. You'd have to work with Protoss design from the bottom to change that and that's not going to happen.
|
I see some people complain that adept+stalkers+immo+sentry(GS) beats MMM cost per cost. Why shouldn't it? This protoss army is slower (sentry and immortal are, thus slowing down the whole thing), has worse anti-air than marines and cannot be lifted and fly away on turbovacs to ignore terrain.
Maybe terrans are too used to have the better mobility AND better units cost per cost, while in the past protoss had to rely on pure AOE (Collo+Storm) to make it a close fight against MMM.
There's these good support units like the liberator, ghost and widow mine to help the terran cause.
Edit: BigJ makes some good points on this front too ^
|
It'd be perfectly fine for immo/gateball to shit on MMM if terran didn't have to invest so much for bio infrastructure/upgrade wise. Also, the new PO and prism aren't making gateball that immobile.
But anyway, in the current state of the game, liberators are so blatantly OP that they are the terran crutch. Take away the lib from terran and TvP will be a nightmare.
I'm all for a weaker liberator. But that would only be possible with intelligent tweaking. Which blizzard really don't appear to be capable of ATM.
|
On April 04 2016 17:50 Salteador Neo wrote:
I see some people complain that adept+stalkers+immo+sentry(GS) beats MMM cost per cost. Why shouldn't it? This protoss army is slower (sentry and immortal are, thus slowing down the whole thing), has worse anti-air than marines and cannot be lifted and fly away on turbovacs to ignore terrain.
Maybe terrans are too used to have the better mobility AND better units cost per cost, while in the past protoss had to rely on pure AOE (Collo+Storm) to make it a close fight against MMM.
There's these good support units like the liberator, ghost and widow mine to help the terran cause.
Edit: BigJ makes some good points on this front too ^
I like the Gateway army stands a fighting chance against Terran.
However when considering that Protoss mostly can take fast safe third (giving them stronger eco)
- Warp Prism harass is more effective than Bio Drops (due to Warp Ins / Pylon Cannons)
- Protoss has the much stronger late game with PsyStorm / Tempest
If the Liberator gets hammered with a huge nerf - I dont see any parts in the game where Terran actually has an advantage over a Protoss who plays a safe 3-base style with Warp Prism, takes a fourth when feeling safe and then goes into late game á Rain Style.
Terran no longer has any ways to punish a camping protoss (making liberators) since Protoss dont have to feel threatned by anything in the Terran arsenal anymore. Many of the old timings terran used to have when Protoss did not have storm / enough Colossus / was transitioning between storm and colossus are also totally gone in LoTV since as you said, a pure Gateway army stands its ground against Terran Bio. You can almost just mass Gateway units + upgrades + Immortals into 200 supply and have a great army. So was not the case in either WoL or HoTS. Given that Protoss is commonly ahead in upgrades, economy and also now have, if not the better so an as strong army as Terran on gateways - I do not see the strenght in Terrans arsenal in TvP anymore.
Terrans relies so heavily on having the Liberators to actually keep Protoss in check. Without them, I fear the match up is going to be heavily turned in favour of Protoss.
|
On April 01 2016 03:41 pzlama333 wrote:
If all three races like a map, and the stats show all three races have close to 50:50 win ratio, then this map is good and well balanced.
If one race likes a map but another race do not like it, and stats show one race has much higher win ratio then another in this map, then this map may not be balanced.
If all three races do not like a map and think it is hard to play, but the stats show all three races have 50:50 win ratio in this map, is this map balanced?
What is standard? A map which favors no race, is a map which removes the advantages of every race. Standard maps have restrictions such as easy to take third, small entrances, small/no place to blink into main, long rush distance, long air distance, multiple ways to the opponent (because of tanks), routes cant be too wide or too small (because of force fields) and more. Restrictions reduce the number of possible strategies. If ulrena had these restrictions, we would not see tricks like depots which trap adepts (depots on both sides) and give you enough time to build an army or to get a specific tech.
Its natural that a deviation from the norm will favor one race or the other. But that doesnt mean that the map is unplayable for other races. It only means that different races have different advantages on the map.
Every map is like a puzzle that the player has to solve. The game is not about playing the same build orders/strategies on and on. Its about adapting and creating new strategies.
But the contrary exists too. Too much map freedom can force the player into a specific strategy, e.g. lower mineral patches forces early rushes, higher rock hp forces turtle matches, the player who controls the strong canon in the center wins. Also things like lava or moving elements introduce only luck to the game and are gimmicky (means allow only one strategy).
The maps today give you enough strategical freedom. These maps deviate only in 1 or 2 points from standard maps and allow different strategies to pop up, e.g. ulrena where we have seen strategies such as queen, ling, roach drop on the natural, trapping units with depots or early tempest play (all new stuff which happened never before).
|
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think.
|
On April 04 2016 19:01 CyanApple wrote:
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think.
Go ahead, play the testmap. Oh wait, all you can do is play against the same 3 gold leaguers over and over again because there is no matchmaking. I played the testmap with the tankdrop removal+tank buff a lot like that, it's completely nonsensical to do so.
If you want opinions on the changes you just have to open your eyes while going through the thread. But there is only so much you can discuss about whether the corrosive bile has a 7 or 10 second cooldown, don't know what you expect.
The last immortal discussion was sparked by the notion of a liberator nerf and a ravager nerf making it unfair to play against Protoss, so dunno how you can say you read the thread and there is no discussion on topic, yet miss the crucial motivation behind a discussion heavily connected to the original topic.
|
interesting changes like the maps ideas
|
On April 04 2016 19:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:01 CyanApple wrote:
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think. Go ahead, play the testmap. Oh wait, all you can do is play against the same 3 gold leaguers over and over again because there is no matchmaking. I played the testmap with the tankdrop removal+tank buff a lot like that, it's completely nonsensical to do so. If you want opinions on the changes you just have to open your eyes while going through the thread. But there is only so much you can discuss about whether the corrosive bile has a 7 or 10 second cooldown, don't know what you expect. The last immortal discussion was sparked by the notion of a liberator nerf and a ravager nerf making it unfair to play against Protoss, so dunno how you can say you read the thread and there is no discussion on topic, yet miss the crucial motivation behind a discussion heavily connected to the original topic.
Regarding your first paragraph, that's what I was trying to say. We need more ppl playing the testmap. As I am myself currently only gold/plat, I don't consider myself capable to judge balancing issues properly. Sure I could test whether the early ravager push is still strong, but I couldn't say whether they are then still good enough for mid-late game. I am just shocked, that I don't even see a reply hinting in that direction, as this was pretty much the only reason it was introduced. Also I just now checked the last 4 pages of this thread again and only found 3-4 replies discussing the current gameplay changes.
Edit: The timing of my post was probably a bit off, as the discussion around the immortal was of course meaningful. However, I don't see anyone actually testing whether the changed liberator deals far worse with the "protoss gateball" or whether the thor is actually useful against e.g. the "specialized and expensive anti-air" of protoss in the lategame.
Also, I don't even see any reply hinting at the reduced harass-potential of the liberator and how ravagers deal with them after the introduced tweaks, which again is probably the most obvious issue that should be discussed with the current update.
|
On April 04 2016 17:45 Big J wrote:The immortals were problematic since day 1 in WoL. Zerg has never had a good answer on the ground against them besides old Swarm Hosts.
I am only diamond in WOL, but don't find immortals that OP. They are expensive, slow, and weak vs lings/hydra and useless vs air (broods/mutas). I find I really need forcefields with them (more gas).... While as a zerg player so far I find they also die fast vs lings, and so far the colossus scare me much, much more.
I do really like them vs tanks tho.
|
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
Immortals have always been pretty ridiculous per cost, lol. It tells you a lot that Protoss beeline for double robo after taking a quick third off a stargate and start pumping them out asap...
The opposite side of the coin is also true...lurkers really limit Protoss composition diversity. You nerf the immortal, and Protoss will just start going mass air every game (which would really, really suck as it would reveal just how ridiculously OP the carrier is ahaha).
Been laddering as random for awhile, it's pretty interesting to see all these issues from different perspectives.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On April 05 2016 14:10 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals. Immortals have always been pretty ridiculous per cost, lol. It tells you a lot that Protoss beeline for double robo after taking a quick third off a stargate and start pumping them out asap... The opposite side of the coin is also true...lurkers really limit Protoss composition diversity. You nerf the immortal, and Protoss will just start going mass air every game (which would really, really suck as it would reveal just how ridiculously OP the carrier is ahaha). Been laddering as random for awhile, it's pretty interesting to see all these issues from different perspectives.
The opposite side of the coin is the problem, immortals are so good because the rest of the ground army is, in some situation, useless piece of shit. Protoss design overall is the worst of all 3 races, they have designated units because they have to have these. Without immortals and phoenixes(GtG destroyer, AtA destroyer) you will see that somehow Protoss lacks units. This was always the problem since WoL 
|
The problem is the same as it has been for ages, protoss msc and crazy defenders advantage. Protoss is the new zerg with Heavy focus on macro and eco, the difference is that protoss still has a ridiculous amount of options for harass/all-in.
Zerg gets stripped of their macro edge, gain a few gimmicky options (ling/bling drops and nydus) and also gain two op units ravager/lurker, this balance it out somewhat compared to protoss.
Terran gets one op unit that eclipses all other units in OPness, its basically the only real buff terran gets in void.
Compared to what the other two races gained terran were underbuffed.
All three races need to be nerfed, lib needs this ner for sure, ravager needs the nerf but you also have to either nerf the new WP into the ground or make protoss susceptible to early timings (big ner fto msc or similar). Protoss is the old zerg eco wise but with stronger defence, the more time passes by the better protoss will get at perfecting their greed and defence and in the end protoss will reign supreme. Nerf all three please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
