Some people have lately been vocal about how the changes made to Chrono Boost in LotV may not have been as great of a nerf as others think. It even came to conclusions that the new Chrono Boost is not only not a nerf, but actually significantly helps Protoss early game economy, leading to an advantage of 400-500 minerals per minute through having 4-5 more workers early in the game, compared to the old HotS iteration of Chrono Boost (note: 4-5 workers would equal about 230-300 minerals per (real) minute).
To be fair, these numbers seemed to be unbelievably irrealistic to me, so I decided to carefully analyze the situation to find out if these statements have any merits.
I compared the old (Heart of the Swarm) Chrono Boost with the new (Legacy of the Void) one as closely as I could, and compared the theoretical income rates in both cases. Before showing the results, it is important to understand the difference between the two iterations, and know all the exact numbers in connection with the problem.
As probably all of you know, the LotV Chrono Boost:
Increases production rate by 15%;
Stays on the target infinitely;
Starts on the Nexus itself when it is finished and at the start of the game;
Does not stack.
The HotS Chrono Boost, however:
Increases production rate by 50%;
Lasts only 20 game seconds;
Costs 25 energy and the Nexus starts the game without energy;
Does not stack.
The old Chrono Boost cycle lasts approximately 45 game seconds; this is the time the Nexus needs to regenerate 25 energy. This means, out of every 45 gs, 20 gs is active Chrono time, meaning Chrono Boost is active on its target about 45% of the time (not exactly "only a short while"). This results an overall average boost of 50% * 0.45 = 22% (approximately). This is obviously more than the 15% increase of the new LotV Chrono, so even in first approximation, the old one seems to be significantly more effective.
The other claim is that the LotV version is stronger because in HotS, the Nexus had to build up energy before Chrono could be used, while in LotV, the game starts with the Nexus already boosted from the first moment. This seems to be a valid point at first. However, we have to consider that HotS is not directly comparable to LotV because one starts with 12 workers, the other one with 6. To make the two compatible, we can discard the first few minutes of HotS games, and start observing once the 12th Probe is finished. This way, we start at 12 workers in both cases. However, by dropping this part of the game, we dropped the very part when the regeneration in question happens. In fact, a regular (basically every) Protoss build in HotS had almost exactly 25 energy on the Nexus by the time the 12th Probe came out. This means the argument about the regeneration is no longer valid (more details below).
Chrono Boost staying infinitely on structures has also been brought up as a reason why it is stronger in LotV. We saw that, mathematically, that does not make it stronger than the old one (in fact, it is less effective). The fact that in HotS the Nexus had to manually be boosted, while in LotV it happens automatically, is indeed a buff, making it easier for players to reach ideal worker production. However, above a certain level, every Chrono Boost in the early game was hit close to perfectly anyway, so this can't be the reason of any imbalance in higher leagues. Also worth considering that while banking up energy on the Nexus because of forgetting to use it did cost the player, you could always use that energy later, so the opportunity wasn't entirely lost (except if the Nexus reached max. energy, which really didn't ever happen above a decent level). However, if you forget to move Chrono from the Nexus when you are no longer producing Probes (or from any building, for that matter) and you Chrono Boost an inactive structure, you lose that time and can never get it back in any form.
Also, even if it does not affect early game economy where all the boosts go into worker production anyway, it is also worth noting that in HotS you could bank up energy on the Nexus on purpose, and later use it continuously on a longer upgrade or unit, like Warp Gate. This is no longer possible in LotV.
Detailed explanation and proper calculations can be found here, or as pictures in the spoiler tags below:
Conclusion: there is absolutely no aspect in which the LotV Chrono Boost is stronger than its HotS counterpart except for the fact that if you forget to use it in the early game, it does not punish your economy. It is, however, objectively weaker, if not by a terribly huge margin, and has other, not quantifiable disadvantages as well.
Finally, this thread is about the differences between the two versions of Chrono Boost alone. I, on purpose, did not compare Chrono Boost to either Larva or MULEs. I know both were nerfed coming into LotV, and now you know that so was Chrono. It doesn't really make sense to compare the percentages between these nerfs, because they make up different percentages of the corresponding races' macro.
P.S.: Did you know that in HotS, Chrono Boost reduced the energy regeneration rate by 2.5%? This is kind of irrelevant now, since Nexi no longer have energy, so it could only work on an Orbital Command, but it seems that in LotV, this reduction is about 6.5%.
Love your articles, man, it's inspiring. It's great how you can do such a clean comparison with the corresponding numbers and analysis. Got the point, GGWP.
Nice work. Back in HOTS you could clearly see the difference between a good protoss player and a "bad" one. Nexus with half or full energy was very common to see (yes even high master players...). LOTV made that aspect a lot easier for those type of players.
This conclusion is very flawed. You tested HotS Protoss vs LotV Protoss, which is useless for a few reasons, the big ones are: The HotS and LotV economies are not comparable, and that the time to build 6 probes (and the lost mining time because of having to build a pylon) at the start of the game in HotS according to your testing procedure means nothing.
A more informative way to test this would be to graph out the first few minutes of minerals mined/income for each of the 3 races in both versions of the game, using what would be considered the 'standard' opener, and compare Protoss vs Terran/Zerg in HotS and in LotV. That way you could reach a meaningful result.
TBH that's a much smaller difference between them than I expected. 115% bonus vs 122% bonus as an average across the course of the game. That means that the Protoss macro mechanic is still operating at around 94% efficiency (115/122) vs 83% efficiency (25/30) for Terran and 75% efficiency (3/4) for Zerg. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from this of course, since this is looking at the situations in a vaccuum and not taking into account all of the other countless changes that have gone int LotV, but it does seem like Chronoboost was the 'least nerfed' macro mechanic.
On June 20 2016 05:19 iTzSnypah wrote: This conclusion is very flawed. You tested HotS Protoss vs LotV Protoss, which is useless for a few reasons, the big ones are: The HotS and LotV economies are not comparable, and that the time to build 6 probes (and the lost mining time because of having to build a pylon) at the start of the game in HotS according to your testing procedure means nothing.
A more informative way to test this would be to graph out the first few minutes of minerals mined/income for each of the 3 races in both versions of the game, using what would be considered the 'standard' opener, and compare Protoss vs Terran/Zerg in HotS and in LotV. That way you could reach a meaningful result.
I agree with this but nonetheless it''s a very iinformative post. and the question he wanted to adress was if the new chronoboost was a buff compared to the old one and not how it matches up against the other races although that would be the more interesting question imo.
Well, ok Now we Know chrono is nerved Compared to Hots times. Mules and Larva mechanics were nerved as well. The Point is that chrono has to be activated one time and then being active for ever. That makes it less demanding to utilize compared to Terran or Zergs Macro mechanics. Mules and Injection are mechanics that are vital to be on Spot Every time. Thais why it may be considered less nerved or even buffed compared to t or z
All right. According to what you say, the potential highest-level upside of the Chrono change is only present in the first 45 seconds, before the pre-change Protoss would get its first boost. All that is being mined in the first 45 seconds is minerals, and so the relevant production is nothing but Pylons, Gateways, and Nexuses. With this understood, by how much do those accelerated 45 seconds bring forward the timing for potential proxy 2gate or Nexus first builds? These are the two styles of play that stand to gain the most from early mineral gains: greed that can outpace attempts to punish it, and aggression that cannot be stopped. So, then, if the timing is highly significant, we can expect this to be a buff, as the advantage of gaining a very early and safe expansion (as Zerg does) or of simply winning the game is huge.
However, your calculations appear to be suspect. I've been reading through your full article, and there's no explanation for why the first three HotS Probes aren't all taking 17 seconds to build apiece (which is as close as you can get to the critical 45 second mark). In fact, unless I'm horribly misinformed and out of date, the appropriate build is to save Chrono until the first FOUR Probes are completed, and then Chrono as the first Pylon finishes. I highly recommend you go over this section again, avoid trying to streamline it, and actually do the practical, real-world math for analyzing how real builds make use of the relevant resources.
I'm pretty sure it is a nerf, for reference, but your article doesn't do a thing to prove it.
Your post have flaws. Beside ones mention before, here is this
On June 20 2016 04:10 Sholip wrote: The other claim is that the LotV version is stronger because in HotS, the Nexus had to build up energy before Chrono could be used, while in LotV, the game starts with the Nexus already boosted from the first moment. This seems to be a valid point at first. However, we have to consider that HotS is not directly comparable to LotV because one starts with 12 workers, the other one with 6. To make the two compatible, we can discard the first few minutes of HotS games, and start observing once the 12th Probe is finished. This way, we start at 12 workers in both cases. However, by dropping this part of the game, we dropped the very part when the regeneration in question happens. In fact, a regular (basically every) Protoss build in HotS had almost exactly 25 energy on the Nexus by the time the 12th Probe came out. This means the argument about the regeneration is no longer valid (more details below).]
Well here you are forgetting to mention that by this time, macro boosters for terran and zerg are ready, while in LOTV terran needs to build depot, then rex and only then can build orbital and zerg needs to start a new hatch and build pool to create queens. Big difference.
@Zulu23 This might be correct but it is also incorrect in a certain way. Let's do a speculation here which I base on something I heard from a well-known streamer recently: "The pros do not perfectly use chronoboost either right now".
If you look at the way e.g. terrans, especially lower level terrans, tend to use the energy of their orbitals it has a certain pattern. Most terran players will have experienced that at a certain time they used to automatically just press the mule button as soon as it was available. This can lead to e.g. not being able to scan when you consciously want to and this will change during the later stages of a game where scans become the primary energy use (and the focus is on the army instead of the base).
Now let's look at what a protoss player has to do now: They need to switch chronoboost everytime they want but not in a certain pattern that could be automated as much but in a reactive pattern which creates a, theoretically, higher focus or mental ressources to change the chronoboost accordingly to the correct target. I think it would be very interesting to actually search pro replays and lower-level player replays for how they are using chronoboost and when they are chronoboosting empty buildings. I would bet that as much as lower level players tended to forget chronoboost and stack energy in HotS they will also tend to forget to switch chronoboost accordingly in LotV, making it much less effective because, as the OP wrote, the time cannot be gained back.
Looking at this hypothesis, the new chronoboost would be a buff for certain things which need to be maintained for a longer time (e.g. probe production or upgrades) but the usage has to be a lot more constant and refined in a reactive pattern which is harder to automate.
At the time Scan becomes relevant to be the primary consumer of orbital energy Protoss usually has 3full satuarated bases and uses the chrono permanently on upgrades...
On June 20 2016 06:27 kill3r_cro wrote: Well here you are forgetting to mention that by this time, macro boosters for terran and zerg are ready
By the time the 12th probe is out in HotS, MULEs and injects are actually nowhere near ready with a standard build. The time difference between the chrono and the first MULE/inject in LotV is longer than in HotS, but since the production boost by chrono is less, that's actually not too big of a deal.
Great post! As usual a simple calm headed non butt hurt approach to understanding the game triumphs over whine and the emotional maturity of adults with Peter Pan/ Christ syndromes. Well played.
On June 20 2016 06:27 kill3r_cro wrote: Well here you are forgetting to mention that by this time, macro boosters for terran and zerg are ready
By the time the 12th probe is out in HotS, MULEs and injects are actually nowhere near ready with a standard build. The time difference between the chrono and the first MULE/inject in LotV is longer than in HotS, but since the production boost by chrono is less, that's actually not too big of a deal.
Maybe its not ready, but its a lot longer and its big period on start that toss does have macro booster and other two races just have to start to climb tech tree to get it, and we all know that advantage on start exponentionaly rises through game. And since new PO and toss early game safety, one can expo without any concerns of early pressure and macro booster multiplies.
I would appreciate if someone could tell me If my observations of watching pretty much every pro tournament in HOTS and LOTV are correct and how the differences can be explained.
HOTS TvP equally skilled players macro game no significant early damage either side done: T besides very first minutes slightly ahead economically cause fast 2 Orbitals that led to faster 3rd that was also build on the expansion spot mostly. That led to a 10-40 supply lead midgame (around 150 supply). Units Bio vs Blinkstalker/Colo/Zealot roughly.
LOTV same scenario: P seems to have a slight eco advantage that seems to get quite huge after 3rd/4th base. Midgame now I see the P having more supply. Units are Bio vs gateway+immos.
Now if the above is somewhat true then how did the income curve not change? Obviously there are more factors than mules/boost to consider and the reason I see T behind midgame in alot of aspects is probably cause there is almost never a scenario where the T does not take early damage.
In PvZ in HOTS I saw Zergs jumping ahead in worker count after 35 by up to 10-15 or even more although more was greedy and very punishable. Now I see same worker counts up to 60-70 whatever the end amount of workers is both players want.
These are just my observations and by no means any balance complain. I just think its not correct to say economy states are similar or the same. How the changes get justified and if they actually are balanced other people have to decide with more knowledge and skill.
On June 20 2016 10:08 loko822 wrote: I would appreciate if someone could tell me If my observations of watching pretty much every pro tournament in HOTS and LOTV are correct and how the differences can be explained.
HOTS TvP equally skilled players macro game no significant early damage either side done: T besides very first minutes slightly ahead economically cause fast 2 Orbitals that led to faster 3rd that was also build on the expansion spot mostly. That led to a 10-40 supply lead midgame (around 150 supply). Units Bio vs Blinkstalker/Colo/Zealot roughly.
LOTV same scenario: P seems to have a slight eco advantage that seems to get quite huge after 3rd/4th base. Midgame now I see the P having more supply. Units are Bio vs gateway+immos.
Now if the above is somewhat true then how did the income curve not change? Obviously there are more factors than mules/boost to consider and the reason I see T behind midgame in alot of aspects is probably cause there is almost never a scenario where the T does not take early damage.
In PvZ in HOTS I saw Zergs jumping ahead in worker count after 35 by up to 10-15 or even more although more was greedy and very punishable. Now I see same worker counts up to 60-70 whatever the end amount of workers is both players want.
These are just my observations and by no means any balance complain. I just think its not correct to say economy states are similar or the same. How the changes get justified and if they actually are balanced other people have to decide with more knowledge and skill.
Let me know if Im totally wrong here, thx.
very well said, without a macro comparison between races, this study doesn't mean that much. Yes it is a slight nerf for P in numbers, however it is a big buff for PvZ and PvT considering how inject and mule were butchered.
Since I was the one who did a rather stupid analysis on an excel sheet before and spoke out to the community. I am so glad to see how its really done. Not to mention also how well this is done.
Read through the entire thing and loved it. You rock sholip!!
Another request would be to compare how all economies have been affected since the macro nurfs as many other people like me keep speculating.
So basically the Chrono nerf is kind of a joke early game and the reason Protoss is almost always ahead in eco, then it is even easier and safer with the MotherCore to defend building a faster eco...
On June 20 2016 10:08 loko822 wrote: I would appreciate if someone could tell me If my observations of watching pretty much every pro tournament in HOTS and LOTV are correct and how the differences can be explained.
HOTS TvP equally skilled players macro game no significant early damage either side done: T besides very first minutes slightly ahead economically cause fast 2 Orbitals that led to faster 3rd that was also build on the expansion spot mostly. That led to a 10-40 supply lead midgame (around 150 supply). Units Bio vs Blinkstalker/Colo/Zealot roughly.
LOTV same scenario: P seems to have a slight eco advantage that seems to get quite huge after 3rd/4th base. Midgame now I see the P having more supply. Units are Bio vs gateway+immos.
Now if the above is somewhat true then how did the income curve not change? Obviously there are more factors than mules/boost to consider and the reason I see T behind midgame in alot of aspects is probably cause there is almost never a scenario where the T does not take early damage.
In PvZ in HOTS I saw Zergs jumping ahead in worker count after 35 by up to 10-15 or even more although more was greedy and very punishable. Now I see same worker counts up to 60-70 whatever the end amount of workers is both players want.
These are just my observations and by no means any balance complain. I just think its not correct to say economy states are similar or the same. How the changes get justified and if they actually are balanced other people have to decide with more knowledge and skill.
Let me know if Im totally wrong here, thx.
very well said, without a macro comparison between races, this study doesn't mean that much. Yes it is a slight nerf for P in numbers, however it is a big buff for PvZ and PvT considering how inject and mule were butchered.
'Yes yes your math is all well and good...but here's some hyperbole and exaggeration! P got big buffs FACT, injects and mules were just BUTCHERED.'
On June 20 2016 04:10 Sholip wrote: Also, even if it does not affect early game economy where all the boosts go into worker production anyway, it is also worth noting that in HotS you could bank up energy on the Nexus on purpose, and later use it continuously on a longer upgrade or unit, like Warp Gate. This is no longer possible in LotV.
Alas, poor Korean-style 4 Warpgate All-In.
You were the worst, but then you were the best when you kept working in Diamond League despite the nerfs.
On June 20 2016 04:10 Sholip wrote: Also, even if it does not affect early game economy where all the boosts go into worker production anyway, it is also worth noting that in HotS you could bank up energy on the Nexus on purpose, and later use it continuously on a longer upgrade or unit, like Warp Gate. This is no longer possible in LotV.
Alas, poor Korean-style 4 Warpgate All-In.
You were the worst, but then you were the best when you kept working in High Masters despite the nerfs.
I did actually know that Chrono Boost also applied a debuff to energy regeneration speed - this is why the Nexus itself didn't generate mana at a faster rate than usual when you were chronoboosting your probes out.
But did anyone else also know that if you somehow put chronoboost on a terran building that is burning, that it will burn down at an accelerated rate compared to before?
I'm also reasonably sure that once upon a time when I tried this, it also made flying terran buildings fly faster.
Also, if you were to create a damage over time effect spell that could also affect buildings, then a chronoboosted building would take damage at an increased rate (but not take more damage over all)
Just think about all the hilarious offensive uses and combos for chronoboost there could have been, once upon a time
On June 20 2016 14:12 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: I did actually know that Chrono Boost also applied a debuff to energy regeneration speed - this is why the Nexus itself didn't generate mana at a faster rate than usual when you were chronoboosting your probes out.
But did anyone else also know that if you somehow put chronoboost on a terran building that is burning, that it will burn down at an accelerated rate compared to before?
I'm also reasonably sure that once upon a time when I tried this, it also made flying terran buildings fly faster.
Also, if you were to create a damage over time effect spell that could also affect buildings, then a chronoboosted building would take damage at an increased rate (but not take more damage over all)
Just think about all the hilarious offensive uses and combos for chronoboost there could have been, once upon a time
I'm not sure about the Burning Building part, but I did try to Chrono things back when the Tempest was given a big DoT spell and Chrono heavily sped up the process of the spell.
good post since others already pointed it would be nice to compare with zerg/terran econ in lotv will just clear something i was in doubt while reading. If i'm not mistaken the probes build time is 12s, 17s is from hots when faster also affected game clock and time tooltips right?
even though it won't be as accurate as possible due to different openers and required defense investments (in addition to different building costs), a linear worker build and total minerals mined for the other races to compare could be already good.
I agree with you on all but one point and that is the argument that the lotv CB is better due to it being able to be used from the start is moot. What you should have done (if possible) is compare how the hots chronoboost would have fared if it was unchanged in lotv. The arguement that the they are compareable due to 25 energy being accumulated when 12 workers are out in hots is invalid in my opinion. You can't directly compare the economic models of hots and lotv in that way.
To thorougly disapprove this myth I would like to know how much less worker/minerals protoss would have at the time that hots CB would be usable if they wouldn't have changed the CB from hots to lotv. In other Words, how would hots cb compare to lotv cb in the economic model of lotv is whay really should be considered here in my opinion.
I don't really believe there is a reason to do this though since your numbers clearly show that the result will be that the new lotv CB is inferior. It was nerfed and I am not disputing that but the arguement that the lotv CB help protoss early game in comparision is actually valid.
I really hate the new chronoboost. It's incredibly clunky to use, weaker, takes far less skill to use compared to HotS, takes away strategical depth, feels like it does absolutely nothing.
LOTV chrono boost was a minor nerf overall IMO when it was +22.5%. When they reduced its effectiveness by 1.5x after that (to +15%) it became a pretty huge nerf
Being able to bank energy for any amount of time (rather than having to spend it instantly) and being able to use the energy from more than 1 nexus towards the same goal were both very powerful tools that every protoss used every game
-----
These are just my observations and by no means any balance complain. I just think its not correct to say economy states are similar or the same.
I think this is not related to chrono boost, there are far bigger unrelated macro changes in Legacy.
Old chrono makes things 50% faster for 20s. It takes rougly 45s until you can use the next chrono. The new chrono makes things 15% faster, but has no limit. We compare now how much time you safe in the same time period (until the old chrono restarts).
Now i am not sure, if mana fills up, when chrono still is active. Thats why i calculate both cases:
Mana fills after chrono: Old: 0.50 * 20 = 10s New: 0.15 * (20 + 45) = 9.75s
Mana fills while chrono: Old: 0.50 * 20 = 10s New: 0.15 * 45 = 6.75s
This is hots time, but it doesnt matter for the comparision. As you can see the old is always better. It was clearly a nerf.
Before the change you could use all your mana for one purpose and boost it significantly. That created strong timings and was very strategic.
I think chrono was one of the best macro mechanics. It required attention if you used it for worker production and upgrades. That was important for higher leagues. But when you missed one in lower leagues, the punishment was only small, because your opponent was just as bad at keeping timings as you and you could just boost something else.
I thought that the old chrono was pretty "newb-friendly" anyway because you could bank 4 chrono's worth of energy anyway (like an orbital command).
The best and obvious course of action was to spend the first 2-4 as soon as possible because the economic gains were too great to ignore with any opening, but after that people would typically bank ~1-2 at times and the energy would rarely sit in the 50-100% range. That was useful for the people who would typically forget or mess up chrono at lower levels of play.
On June 20 2016 20:58 Cyro wrote: I thought that the old chrono was pretty "newb-friendly" anyway because you could bank from 50 to 200 energy anyway (like an orbital command)
25 - 100, I've never understood why Protoss had different scale...
25 - 100, I've never understood why Protoss had different scale...
Ah of course, probably because of energy regeneration rates being fairly constant. Just derped the number cause i've been exclusively playing LOTV for over 1 year
This post only seems silly to me because the idea was to nerf each race macro mechanic overall. I'm not sure what proposed change you'd make to this since as a Terran player it's obvious that we were not given anything to help compensate for the fact that mules now return less minerals over their life (unlike the permachrono for upgrades that Toss gets and stacked injects).
I agree that LotV chrono is worse, but wasn't it supposed to be?
The whole point of the post is that somehow, someway there are people that believe the new chrono is actually an improvement over the old one in raw numbers (as opposed to inject and mules) "because it's always active", which is not true as shown by this thread.
Without seeing the difference between the difference between injects in HotS and LotV or difference between mules in HotS and LotV versus the difference in Chrono boost all this analysis is saying is that old Chrono is better than itself in LotV. All this post says is that Blizzard didn't lie when they said chrono boost in Legacy is worse than the one in HotS.
While the old chrono is better than the new one in a vacuum that's largely meaningless. Without investigating how larva/mules have changed its very possible, arguably likely, that the difference between old chrono and new chrono resulted in a buff for Protoss because the difference between mules/larva is more of a nerf than the difference between chrono boosts. That fact is what players (avilo in his last thread) are trying to discuss, not that chrono is better in LotV than in HotS, but that the nerfs to the macro mechanics left chrono in a better spot than mules and larva.
On June 21 2016 03:36 Teoita wrote: The whole point of the post is that somehow, someway there are people that believe the new chrono is actually an improvement over the old one in raw numbers (as opposed to inject and mules) "because it's always active", which is not true as shown by this thread.
Yes, all I wanted to show is that the new Chrono is weaker than the old, because even if it's always active, its boost effeciency is so heavily nerfed that it outweighs the fact that it's permanent, and results overall in a weaker ability. I agree with those saying that it is pretty obvious, but somehow there were people who claimed the opposite...
Now I really don't want to put words in peoples' mouths but I'm pretty sure that the "people" are claiming that chronoboost was disproportionaly effected by the change in LotV such that the nerf between chrono boosts was actually a "buff" because larva and mules were nerfed worse. I think what we're dealing with is miscommunication between people where people are saying "chrono boost is better" actually mean what I said above, that it is better because of differences and that people take "chrono boost is better" as a literal "it was buffed in LotV" which is not the case.
Yeah, smells like teoita is in damage control mode. The new chrono is indeed an improvement to the old one once you look at the greater picture (including the other 2 races).
On June 21 2016 03:36 Teoita wrote: The whole point of the post is that somehow, someway there are people that believe the new chrono is actually an improvement over the old one in raw numbers (as opposed to inject and mules) "because it's always active", which is not true as shown by this thread.
Yes, all I wanted to show is that the new Chrono is weaker than the old, because even if it's always active, its boost effeciency is so heavily nerfed that it outweighs the fact that it's permanent, and results overall in a weaker ability. I agree with those saying that it is pretty obvious, but somehow there were people who claimed the opposite...
On June 21 2016 03:05 Nathanias wrote: This post only seems silly to me because the idea was to nerf each race macro mechanic overall. I'm not sure what proposed change you'd make to this since as a Terran player it's obvious that we were not given anything to help compensate for the fact that mules now return less minerals over their life (unlike the permachrono for upgrades that Toss gets and stacked injects).
I agree that LotV chrono is worse, but wasn't it supposed to be?
Mules were stronger anyway. Stronger race needs a bigger nerf. Wouldn't you agree?
On June 21 2016 03:05 Nathanias wrote: This post only seems silly to me because the idea was to nerf each race macro mechanic overall. I'm not sure what proposed change you'd make to this since as a Terran player it's obvious that we were not given anything to help compensate for the fact that mules now return less minerals over their life (unlike the permachrono for upgrades that Toss gets and stacked injects).
I agree that LotV chrono is worse, but wasn't it supposed to be?
Mules were stronger anyway. Stronger race needs a bigger nerf. Wouldn't you agree?
MULEs weren't stronger in a sense because the whole terran race was balanced around it, it showed when they removed all macro mechanics, terran was basically unplayable without MULEs.
Perhaps chronoboost should be unlocked after completion of a gateway. For people that do not think this is all a big deal - it is. If you're able to have 4-5 more workers in the early stages of a game that you normally would not have...that's another 400-500 minerals per minute
You need ~6.15 extra workers to meet 400 minerals per minute extra if you're utilizing your close patches already as every player high enough for this to really matter will be doing (last i checked on frozen temple it was ~65 minerals per minute per worker on far patches, ~85 on close)
Chrono being active from 0 seconds instead of when the gateway finishes adds literally 1 worker (hey i did the math). The speed boost roughly works out to building 8 workers in the time that it would take to build 7, which is about the time when you have gateways finished. (7 * 1.15 = 8.05). This is vs no macro mechanic at all.
Terran actually got the best deal when it comes to macro mechanic nerfs in the beta. 3 larvae and chrono nerfs hurt a lot.
The mule changes according to liquipedia cut minerals mined from 30 to 25 but also allowed for more trips, so they're actually only getting ~7% less minerals overall? It's not clear if it's a 7% nerf or a 16.67% nerf but either way sounds preferable (perhaps even strongly preferable) to the size of nerfs that zerg and P got with ruined chrono and 3 larvae.
Perhaps chronoboost should be unlocked after completion of a gateway. For people that do not think this is all a big deal - it is. If you're able to have 4-5 more workers in the early stages of a game that you normally would not have...that's another 400-500 minerals per minute
You need ~6.15 extra workers to meet 400 minerals per minute extra if you're utilizing your close patches already as every player high enough for this to really matter will be doing (last i checked on frozen temple it was ~65 minerals per minute per worker on far patches, ~85 on close)
Chrono being active from 0 seconds instead of when the gateway finishes adds literally 1 worker (hey i did the math). The speed boost roughly works out to building 8 workers in the time that it would take to build 7, which is about the time when you have gateways finished. (7 * 1.15 = 8.05). This is vs no macro mechanic at all.
Terran actually got the best deal when it comes to macro mechanic nerfs in the beta. 3 larvae and chrono nerfs hurt a lot.
The mule changes according to liquipedia cut minerals mined from 30 to 25 but also allowed for more trips, so they're actually only getting ~7% less minerals overall? It's not clear if it's a 7% nerf or a 16.67% nerf but either way sounds preferable (perhaps even strongly preferable) to the size of nerfs that zerg and P got with ruined chrono and 3 larvae.
Not sure where you're getting your information, but MULE used to mine 270-300 minerals over 9-10 trips over ~65 seconds. Just tested on Frozen Temple on a close patch then the mule spawned on the correct side of the mineral patch the mule mined 225 minerals in 9 trips over 65 seconds on a close mineral patch. Taking the conservative estimate of 225/270 (I'm pretty sure it was always 300 on a close patch in HotS) thats still only 83% of normal efficiency, exactly as I claimed earlier.
Tested on a far patch and got 200 minerals.
edit: Tested on HotS and it's 270 on a close or far patch. 300 was only if you did the patrol trick I guess.
On June 21 2016 09:03 Cyro wrote: Liquipedia says that they got 240-270 in WOL/HOTS (and i remembered the 270 number) and it also says that they get 225-250 in LOTV.
270 to 250/225 is a 7.4% - 16.67% reduction
Feel free to test yourself, it's 225/200 in LotV not 250/225. I just tested it and these were my results.
edit: And always 270 in HotS unless they were going off of like Xel'Naga Caverns mineral patches that were extra far away from the CC. Plus there was the patrol trick for your first few MULEs that got you up to 300 (which is quite significant since +30 minerals in early game is a lot more important than in later stages).
But yes, a 16.67% reduction compared to Chronoboost's 5.7% reduction if you'd rather phrase it that way.
Feel free to test yourself, it's 225/200 in LotV not 250/225. I just tested it and these were my results.
I did test it and was like 0.2 seconds away from getting 250 with my first mule
But yes, a 16.67% reduction compared to Chronoboost's 5.7% reduction if you'd rather phrase it that way.
5.7% reduction?
If you count mule as giving 225 vs 270, then it's 1.2x worse than old mule. This chrono is ~1.55x worse than old chrono by straight seconds saved but no longer has the ability to bank or spend multiple nexus of energy on the same structure which is a large nerf
Feel free to test yourself, it's 225/200 in LotV not 250/225. I just tested it and these were my results.
I did test it and was like 0.2 seconds away from getting 250 with my first mule
Which means you actually lose those 25 minerals too. With how fast bases mine out in LotV that's actually pretty significant IMO. Maybe there are some patches where you get 250 but I have a hard time believing it since you only get 200 on far patches from my tests.
According to the OP's research Chronoboost used to be a ~122% boost when used continuously, and is now a continuous 115% boost. 1-(115/122)= .057377..., or 5.7%
According to the OP's research Chronoboost used to be a ~122% boost when used continuously, and is now a continuous 115% boost. 1-(115/122)= .057377..., or 5.7%
If you fix the wording to 22% boost vs 15% boost, that's a reduction in efficiency by 1.467x, AKA a 31.8% nerf.
Mule should get you 225 on close patches. That's a 16.67% nerf over HOTS (1.2x worse). I'm picking up the 250'th mineral but not actually handing it in
Mule still works the same way that it always did, chrono got the ability to bank it and/or use multiple nexii to boost one thing removed. The chrono nerf is also more than twice as bad numerically (1.467x vs 1.2x nerf) and the effect of getting chrono from 0:00 is way too small to offset this for any opener
Having looked over the math, i think that the macro mechanic nerf was clearly favoring terran over both P and Z, yet some terrans single this out to complain.
According to the OP's research Chronoboost used to be a ~122% boost when used continuously, and is now a continuous 115% boost. 1-(115/122)= .057377..., or 5.7%
Chrono boost was never a 122% boost - that implies making workers 2.22x faster than normal.
If you fix the wording to 22% boost vs 15% boost, that's a reduction in efficiency by 1.467x, AKA a 31.8% nerf.
Ah, I suppose you're correct. Still, I think you're severely underestimating how huge the MULE nerf is compared to the Chronoboost nerf on the race's economies. In terms of how fast probes are actually created, it's only a 5.7% nerf, whereas the MULE nerf is straight up ~45 less minerals per mule.
On June 21 2016 09:17 Cyro wrote: Having looked over the math, i think that the macro mechanic nerf was clearly favoring terran over both P and Z, yet terran is the one to complain? Or maybe just a few specific terrans?
I'd agree that the Terran macro mechanic nerf wasn't as bad as the Zerg one, but are you really comparing the importance of Chronoboost to Protoss as being equal to the importance of MULEs to Terran? Zerg got shafted the worst, Terran the second worst and Protoss the least imo. The biggest problem for Protoss is not being able to get specific research / tech up as quickly, not really the impact on their economy.
I'd agree that the Terran macro mechanic nerf wasn't as bad as the Zerg one, but are you really comparing the importance of Chronoboost to Protoss as being equal to the importance of MULEs to Terran? Zerg got shafted the worst, Terran the second worst and Protoss the least imo. The biggest problem for Protoss is not being able to get specific research / tech up as quickly, not really the impact on their economy.
This analysis isn't very useful. What you should have done is make a test map with:
1) 12 worker start with old chrono VS 12 worker start with new chrono
2) 12 worker start old mule VS 12 worker start new mule
3) 12 worker start old inject VS 12 worker start new inject
and then compare the economical situations after a few minutes using the currently accepted as standard build orders.
This even assumes that a 6->12 worker start doesn't influence flow of the game differently for the 3 races, which it does. This is of course less the case in Sc2, but I'm confident that if a similar change would happen in BW, zerg would get the short end of the stick seeing that they're also limited by larva generation.
I did read it, it did nothing of the sorts, it did a vacuum analysis. It doesn't take into account minerals lost due to probes scouting and warping in buildings. It also doesn't take into account times when you have to save minerals for buildings and upgrades (reducing chronoboost's effectiveness) and a plethora of other factors.
I don't know any protoss build orders but I'm sure they're not that streamlined that you can produce probes 100% of the time, or maybe that is the case in Sc2? If so, ignore this part of the argument.
So to bring me back to my previous post. It would have been more useful to compare actual in game situations, and also look at the situation of the other races since that's the only thing that matters (the economical, technological and military state).
This thread is going off of only the math aspect, without understanding the implications of how boosting workers from the very start of the game snowballs a game, as well as there being insane human error/fault with using chronoboost.
LOTV chrono is 100% stronger than HOTS chrono just like automatic larva inject was ridiculously OP when it was put into the game because Zerg would have perfect macro like an AI never ever forgetting to inject.
Also, your math is not including that human error. As well as the math numbers you are going over are assuming 100% chrono is used on probes, where in HOTS 100% of chrono was not used on probes. In LOTV, most chronoboost usage is on probes because it's on them 100% of the time.
Despite the fact chrono is weaker in LOTV in terms of raw number/probe output, the fact that it's on the probes 100% of the time over a long period of time means it's insanely more effective than a player that accumulates 75-100 chrono and wasn't chronoing their probes in the first place.
LOTV chrono is a lot stronger than HOTS chrono - there is no myth. Your analysis lacks a lot of gameplay elements and the difference in how both are used in their corresponding games.
It also fails to acknowledge that at a start of a game where both player's economies are just building up, it's insanely more beneficial to have a boosted economy for the first 30-40 workers of the game.
It means if you are getting more workers earlier in a game of SC2, that's more income those workers are bringing back. Having chronoboost available from the very start of a LOTV game is insanely OP compared to HOTS where not 100% of the chrono was used due to that human error, and not all of it was used on probes to begin with.
Imagine if Z/T both were able to larva inject/mule at the very start of a game or if Terran was able to "call down" 3-4 extra SCVs more than normal. That's another 135 or so minerals per minute, assuming 45 or so minerals per minute per worker.
That is currently what Protoss is able to achieve in LOTV from the very start of a game, which makes their economy stronger than it supposed to be at the start of the game. Whether or not you think it's stronger than HOTS chronoboost does not matter - the fact is P chronoboost in LOTV is allowing them a too strong of a start that's not supposed to be possible compared to HOTS and WOL.
This thread's OP is entirely a vacuum analysis that does not look at how the game is actually played. And a lot of the math is also incorrect because it does not factor the human error of HOTS + choice of not using chrono on probes, not to mention the snowballing factor of getting an early eco boost compared to the other two races which by the way, have nerfed macro mechanics as well compared to HOTS.
The big difference is T/Z have the nerfed macro mechanics overall, whereas P is getting this constant probe boost throughout the entire game with zero human error, and also is starting the game with an unfair economy advantage due to the worker boost.
Hi guys, i rarely if ever make another thread like this on the same topic, but since it seems a lot of people in the community in the other thread i made, as well as in that "myth of chronoboost buff" thread don't seem to want to look at actual gameplay....
I decided i'd go ahead and prove to you what i have been posting about in regards to LOTV chronoboost.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that starting a game with chrono enabled is snowballing Protoss economy past where it is supposed to be that early in the game.
Getting even 3-4 extra workers in early game is an unfair advantage over the other two races that never existed in WOL and HOTS. Imagine starting a game with 15 workers versus your opponent's 12.
It may not seem like much, but that is an insane economy difference allowing you the luxury of affording extra pylons, gates, or even another nexus/cc/hatchery early in the game.
I have rambled about this the longest time in the past months on my stream, here on teamliquid, in random reddit posts etc. You may have heard me always say how "holy fuck Protoss is getting their 3rd way earlier than in HOTS, this makes no sense that they're able to get the 3rd + econ + tech + defense all at once."
Well...apparently taking 30 min or so out of my own time will show everyone objectively that what i've said all this time is objectively true, and that there is an imbalance that exists having infinite chrono enabled on your nexus from the start of an SC2 game.
The time to reach a 2 base saturation: LOTV: approximately 3 minutes 25 seconds HOTS: approximately 4 minutes 45 seconds
Both players have 3rd nexus around the exact same completion at those times in the different games, meaning in LOTV Protoss is getting their 3rd nexus approximately 1 min 20 seconds faster than they would in HOTS.
It is absolutely bonkers that in LOTV Protoss is getting the 3rd nexus 1 minute 20 seconds in advance of where they could possibly get it in HOTS.
I hope people will please objectively take a look at the video, and the two chronoboosts, and understand how impactful it is to be able to boost your workers at the very start of an SC2 game compared to having to wait till you have queens/orbital to unlock macro mechanics.
I honestly think there is an imbalance here and an adjustment should be made perhaps to make chronoboost be unlocked after a pylon or gateway is completed.
I'd like it if people would discuss this again, with the video / analysis in mind instead of just ad hominem attacking me. Thanks in advance.
Posting this here because the other thread i made was closed for no reason
Sure Protoss saturates 2 bases faster in LotV (and the other races do too for that matter). The fact that you believe that it is "past where it is supposed to be that early in the game" is just your unsupported opinion. Why shouldn't the game be balanced around Protoss saturating their natural a minute earlier.
Even in the case they weren't, it's still much faster in LOTV than in HOTS.
Look at a lot of TvP games where P has a fully saturated 3rd and T's 3rd has just landed or has very low saturation. There's something really overly strong for a while with P economy in early game LOTV.
The game timer changes account for the difference fully, it isn't faster it is exactly the same. The timer moved faster in HOTS and it was slowed down in LOTV.
Game speed changes The default game speed 'Faster' is now 1 to 1 with real time. Thus a game that lasted 12 in-game minutes now lasted 12 actual minutes instead of 12 / 1.4 ~= 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
Consequently all unit movement speeds, rate of fire, build times and ability cooldowns have their numbers changed. For example a 110 second upgrade will now state 110 / 1.4 ~= 79 seconds in the tooltip, and have had its actual research time rounded to this number. Note that it still takes almost exactly the same time to finish such an upgrade because the in-game time is going proportionally slower.
Avilo's HOTS time: 4:45 or 285 seconds.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
So yeah, Protoss is exactly the same when it comes saturating a base in LOTV as HOTS, according to his own video. That is why the Nexus in both games was at the same point when full saturation occurred, because everything is the same.
Chronoboost did not get buffed. It is the same. Use a stop watch with your replays instead of the in game timer and you'll realize this.
On June 21 2016 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: The game timer changes account for the difference fully, it isn't faster it is exactly the same. The timer moved faster in HOTS and it was slowed down in LOTV.
Game speed changes The default game speed 'Faster' is now 1 to 1 with real time. Thus a game that lasted 12 in-game minutes now lasted 12 actual minutes instead of 12 / 1.4 ~= 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
Consequently all unit movement speeds, rate of fire, build times and ability cooldowns have their numbers changed. For example a 110 second upgrade will now state 110 / 1.4 ~= 79 seconds in the tooltip, and have had its actual research time rounded to this number. Note that it still takes almost exactly the same time to finish such an upgrade because the in-game time is going proportionally slower.
Avilo's HOTS time: 4:45 or 285 seconds.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
So yeah, Protoss is exactly the same when it comes saturating a base in LOTV as HOTS, according to his own video. That is why the Nexus in both games was at the same point when full saturation occurred, because everything is the same.
Chronoboost did not get buffed. It is the same. Use a stop watch with your replays instead of the in game timer and you'll realize this.
Except that it's not the same regardless because chrono is used differently in the two games.
In HOTS you don't 100% chrono probes, where as a hell of a lot of LOTV games probes are being chrono boosted almost 100% with no built up chrono.
In HOTS, a player might accumulate chrono from forgetting to use it or not doing it perfectly. In LOTV, you'll never not forget to use it.
Remember when queens had auto-inject? Zerg was ridiculous during beta on those patches because even if "larva inject was the same" the fact that you never, ever needed to remember to do it meant you were macroing almost perfectly and the game was kind of playing itself.
LOTV chrono is a lot better than HOTS chrono because of this. Even in ladder games, streams, and pro-games you can see Protoss has their 3rd base and probe saturation very far ahead of Terran.
And if that's true about the HOTS timer not being updated to LOTV timer that still proves my point assuming what you're saying is true...
Even in the case of what you're saying where the times are approximately even...now imagine the HOTS Protoss is not using 100% chrono on probes for even 2-3 cycles...it's a huge difference.
On June 21 2016 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: The game timer changes account for the difference fully, it isn't faster it is exactly the same. The timer moved faster in HOTS and it was slowed down in LOTV.
Game speed changes The default game speed 'Faster' is now 1 to 1 with real time. Thus a game that lasted 12 in-game minutes now lasted 12 actual minutes instead of 12 / 1.4 ~= 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
Consequently all unit movement speeds, rate of fire, build times and ability cooldowns have their numbers changed. For example a 110 second upgrade will now state 110 / 1.4 ~= 79 seconds in the tooltip, and have had its actual research time rounded to this number. Note that it still takes almost exactly the same time to finish such an upgrade because the in-game time is going proportionally slower.
Avilo's HOTS time: 4:45 or 285 seconds.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
So yeah, Protoss is exactly the same when it comes saturating a base in LOTV as HOTS, according to his own video. That is why the Nexus in both games was at the same point when full saturation occurred, because everything is the same.
Chronoboost did not get buffed. It is the same. Use a stop watch with your replays instead of the in game timer and you'll realize this.
Doesn't that mean protoss got an overall relative buff due to protoss being the same economically, terran having 45 less mins per mule and zerg having 3 larva per inject?
Really cool to see math like this, great job Sholip!
I don't think it's really necessary to compare the current or past Chrono to the larvae or Mules for this argument, though I am curious. As it is right now, the change doesn't seem to make a big difference at the higher levels of play, and is somewhat simplified for the more average or lower skill players.
It's crazy to me that some people think the way CB and Protoss macro function is absolutely horrifying. Different race, different macro. I might hate Mules, but that doesn't mean Terran need to be reworked or Mules should be deleted. Seems good to me and, again, it's sweet to see all of the math laid out there for everyone.
On June 21 2016 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: The game timer changes account for the difference fully, it isn't faster it is exactly the same. The timer moved faster in HOTS and it was slowed down in LOTV.
Game speed changes The default game speed 'Faster' is now 1 to 1 with real time. Thus a game that lasted 12 in-game minutes now lasted 12 actual minutes instead of 12 / 1.4 ~= 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
Consequently all unit movement speeds, rate of fire, build times and ability cooldowns have their numbers changed. For example a 110 second upgrade will now state 110 / 1.4 ~= 79 seconds in the tooltip, and have had its actual research time rounded to this number. Note that it still takes almost exactly the same time to finish such an upgrade because the in-game time is going proportionally slower.
Avilo's HOTS time: 4:45 or 285 seconds.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
So yeah, Protoss is exactly the same when it comes saturating a base in LOTV as HOTS, according to his own video. That is why the Nexus in both games was at the same point when full saturation occurred, because everything is the same.
Chronoboost did not get buffed. It is the same. Use a stop watch with your replays instead of the in game timer and you'll realize this.
Except that it's not the same regardless because chrono is used differently in the two games.
In HOTS you don't 100% chrono probes, where as a hell of a lot of LOTV games probes are being chrono boosted almost 100% with no built up chrono.
In HOTS, a player might accumulate chrono from forgetting to use it or not doing it perfectly. In LOTV, you'll never not forget to use it.
Remember when queens had auto-inject? Zerg was ridiculous during beta on those patches because even if "larva inject was the same" the fact that you never, ever needed to remember to do it meant you were macroing almost perfectly and the game was kind of playing itself.
LOTV chrono is a lot better than HOTS chrono because of this. Even in ladder games, streams, and pro-games you can see Protoss has their 3rd base and probe saturation very far ahead of Terran.
And if that's true about the HOTS timer not being updated to LOTV timer that still proves my point assuming what you're saying is true...
Even in the case of what you're saying where the times are approximately even...now imagine the HOTS Protoss is not using 100% chrono on probes for even 2-3 cycles...it's a huge difference.
Thanks for taking the time to test things, it's appriciated. There are a few things I would note, though.
The timer, of course, as others said, is not the same in LotV and HotS. This means your own test, too, shows that the HotS version is (although really marginally) a bit stronger, but at least by no means weaker than the LotV Chrono.
I feel starting the HotS testing from 12 supply but 0 Chrono energy is unfair. It is not easy to find a point to compare the two economic systems, but in HotS when you reached 12 supply, you also had almost exactly 25 energy on your Nexus. So I think it would only be fair to start the HotS testing from 12 supply and 25 energy. I wonder how much it would change the results.
I don't know if Protoss players tend to use Chrono less often on structures other than the Nexus in the early game in LotV, but it is sure that it is not used exclusively on the Nexus. I just randomly opened 4 SPL/SSL games and in every one Chrono was used on other structures in the early game.
What you are obviously right about is the LotV Chrono is harder to forget to use. The only situation in which it can happen is if you switch targets and forget it on a structure where it is no longer needed. True, this should not happen often in the early game. But I wonder, what was the average energy on Nexi in the early game for a pro Protoss player? I think it was used pretty effectively before the mid-late game.
All that said, I don't think the new Chrono would be stronger than the old one. It can, however, be that T and Z got nerfed more heavily regarding economy, coming into LotV. This is something that may be worth looking into more deeply.
I imagine the best way to compare the HotS and LotV would be to check relative worker counts between races (past 12 supply), or better yet relative income (to account for mules), up to full two base saturation for Protoss (third timings changes so they would bias the data), by looking at a a few pro replays for instance.
Obviously that's not conclusive since unit usage has changed greatly and we rely a little more on gateway units, but in terms of raw economy i can't think of a better way.
The problem with Chronpboost is that a Protoss can have it targeted on a Gateway or Robo for example and have it crank out units that much faster without forcing the Protoss player to manage the Chrono like how Zergs have to inject or Terrans have to build units from their production buildings. Same can be said for upgrades. It's just set it and leave it while the other races still have to manage their macro mechanics.
What I find most annoying about the LOTV chronoboost is when I have to move it from one structure to an other: since I usually have all nexuses (nexai?) on the same hotkey, when I assign the chrono to a new structure (e.g. cyber -> forge), I have to reset it on all the other structures where I want it because I cannot decide to move it directly from structure A to structure B (so many times it messes up).. [ I feel I wasn't very clear ]
I know it's a small thing and probably proplayers can do it very efficiently, but it feels very messy and not "clean" as an ability to use.
On June 21 2016 12:56 avilo wrote: [...]LOTV chrono is 100% stronger than HOTS chrono[...]
In LOTV, most chronoboost usage is on probes because it's on them 100% of the time.
Despite the fact chrono is weaker in LOTV in terms of raw number/probe output, the fact that it's on the probes 100% of the time over a long period of time means it's insanely more effective than a player that accumulates 75-100 chrono and wasn't chronoing their probes in the first place.
LOTV chrono is a lot stronger than HOTS chrono - there is no myth. Your analysis lacks a lot of gameplay elements and the difference in how both are used in their corresponding games.
It also fails to acknowledge that at a start of a game where both player's economies are just building up, it's insanely more beneficial to have a boosted economy for the first 30-40 workers of the game.
[...]
That is currently what Protoss is able to achieve in LOTV from the very start of a game, which makes their economy stronger than it supposed to be at the start of the game. Whether or not you think it's stronger than HOTS chronoboost does not matter - the fact is P chronoboost in LOTV is allowing them a too strong of a start that's not supposed to be possible [...]
The big difference is T/Z have the nerfed macro mechanics overall, whereas P is getting this constant probe boost throughout the entire game with zero human error, and also is starting the game with an unfair economy advantage due to the worker boost.
I don't even know where to start, there are so many blatantly wrong statements. I mean hell, someone who says "most of it is used on X because it gets used on X 100% of the time" loses all credibility right there.
You are talking like Trump: A lot of buzzwords, hyperboles, unsupported claims and clear lack of knowledge across all parts of your posts.
You are seriously comparing the LotV chrono to the HotS chrono assuming that everyone banks up 75-100 energy on their nexus because they suck at playing the game. What kind of nonsense comparison is this?
What makes you say that the Protoss economy is stronger than it is supposed to be? "Supposed to" according to whom?
I don't know what kind of games you have been playing and watching lately, but I don't remember seeing a long game where Protoss used all their chrono on their nexus for the entire game.
You fault Scholip for his lack of gameplay proof, yet your own thread was lacking examples from pro play or test videos of comparisons as well.
And I am not even going into that 2nd post, that video was just painful to watch for anyone who has some tiny resemblance of knowledge about HotS and LotV... it simply showed your complete lack thereof and it is a great example of why your opinions and claims - these are not facts, mind you - hold no merit in any civilized discussion.
Let's not forget Zerg lost its larvae production (4 to 3) via queens too, and Terrans got..what, a lategame nerf? I think it's fair to say even true, at least you Toss players need not worry about its effect on you.
On June 22 2016 00:36 DarKcS wrote: Let's not forget Zerg lost its larvae production (4 to 3) via queens too, and Terrans got..what, a lategame nerf? I think it's fair to say even true, at least you Toss players need not worry about its effect on you.
Terran: less minerals per mule and they cant be stacked. So its a big nerf.
On June 21 2016 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: The game timer changes account for the difference fully, it isn't faster it is exactly the same. The timer moved faster in HOTS and it was slowed down in LOTV.
Game speed changes The default game speed 'Faster' is now 1 to 1 with real time. Thus a game that lasted 12 in-game minutes now lasted 12 actual minutes instead of 12 / 1.4 ~= 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
Consequently all unit movement speeds, rate of fire, build times and ability cooldowns have their numbers changed. For example a 110 second upgrade will now state 110 / 1.4 ~= 79 seconds in the tooltip, and have had its actual research time rounded to this number. Note that it still takes almost exactly the same time to finish such an upgrade because the in-game time is going proportionally slower.
Avilo's HOTS time: 4:45 or 285 seconds.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
So yeah, Protoss is exactly the same when it comes saturating a base in LOTV as HOTS, according to his own video. That is why the Nexus in both games was at the same point when full saturation occurred, because everything is the same.
Chronoboost did not get buffed. It is the same. Use a stop watch with your replays instead of the in game timer and you'll realize this.
In HOTS, a player might accumulate chrono from forgetting to use it or not doing it perfectly. In LOTV, you'll never not forget to use it.
In LOTV keeping the chrono on the Nexus when Protoss has the number of Probes they want is wasteful and means they forgot to switch to another structure. So people do and can forget to use it.
In HOTS when both armies are maxed out, having max chronoboost on 4 Nexus means that when the fight happens and I need to re-max, I can do it way faster than in LOTV. The change to chronoboost is a gigantic nerf to Protoss lategame.
Chronoboost doesn't put Protoss behind economically compared to before (when plenty of players did use chrono on their Nexus), but when it comes to tech, army, and late game remaxing, the nerf really hurts.
I'd love the old chronoboost back, it was stronger, especially when remaxing late game. LOTV chrono is significantly weaker.
The final thing I want to say is who cares? Seriously, who really cares about this issue at all? It is like claiming because the Corvette is fastest and most expensive Chevy, it is best. But that is subjective and it depends. If you want go on a vacation with a family of 4, the Corvette is a terrible choice. If you need to tow a boat, it is terrible too.
Subjectively deciding that saturating two bases quickly is somehow meaningful (without evidence of how it is meaningful) is the same as claiming that the Corvette is the best. And the point of SC2 isn't to fully saturate two bases as fast as you can, so it really doesn't matter. The point is to win the game. And any massive advantage doesn't flesh out in the win rates, which is the one objective measure we have.
So even if Protoss can saturate two bases faster in LOTV than in HOTS (and that isn't true), it wouldn't matter unless it was fleshed out in the win rates.
Avilo's LOTV time: 3:25 or 205 seconds x 1.4 (to account for timer changes) = 287 seconds.
When you produce 8 workers in the time that it would take to produce 7, you have a mineral advantage from having faster workers during that time. Your advantage at about 1:30 in the game seems to be 1 extra worker and 0 minerals. By the third nexus timing there should be a significant advantage (3 probes and ~100 minerals banked?) compared to no macro mechanic at all, but the old chrono boost could also bring this kind of advantage.
---
This argument was a simple mistake, though a surprising one. The result is absurd enough to make it obvious that there is a major problem (time running 1.4x faster in HOTS) that was way out of the scale of macro mechanic changes.. some of the other arguments are not huge mistakes like this, they are just awful.
Yes, it was a simple mistake, but people will continue to peddle whatever argument to further their cause that Protoss needs some kind of nerf immediately.
On June 22 2016 03:01 404AlphaSquad wrote: How can a player of Avilos calibre believe the new chrono is stronger?
Because it is objectively stronger?
A few people were pointing out that the timer on HOTS was not updated to the LOTV timer.
If that is true then the test i did still shows that LOTV chrono is stronger because a HOTS Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a LOTV Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
Meaning, yes, LOTV Protoss has an insane economy edge over HOTS Protoss...which is an imbalance...
People wanna keep ad hominem attacking without looking at data/gameplay? OK. I thought this was Teamliquid where people look at actual data/gameplay.
On June 22 2016 03:01 404AlphaSquad wrote: How can a player of Avilos calibre believe the new chrono is stronger?
Because it is objectively stronger?
A few people were pointing out that the timer on HOTS was not updated to the LOTV timer.
If that is true then the test i did still shows that LOTV chrono is stronger because a HOTS Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a LOTV Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
Meaning, yes, LOTV Protoss has an insane economy edge over HOTS Protoss...which is an imbalance...
People wanna keep ad hominem attacking without looking at data/gameplay? OK. I thought this was Teamliquid where people look at actual data/gameplay.
That's a really bad argument. Protoss players in HotS choosing not to chrono probes 100% doesn't make that version of chrono worse. Or do you mean players with bad macro who forget to chrono? People not chronoing key structures still happens in LotV and it's still a big deal.
Plus the HotS chrono boost is just better the longer the game goes. In LotV you can chrono as many buildings as you have nexuses. In the late game in HotS you can boost 4 buildings for every nexus if you bank enough energy.
On June 22 2016 03:01 404AlphaSquad wrote: How can a player of Avilos calibre believe the new chrono is stronger?
Because it is objectively stronger?
A few people were pointing out that the timer on HOTS was not updated to the LOTV timer.
If that is true then the test i did still shows that LOTV chrono is stronger because a HOTS Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a LOTV Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
Meaning, yes, LOTV Protoss has an insane economy edge over HOTS Protoss...which is an imbalance...
People wanna keep ad hominem attacking without looking at data/gameplay? OK. I thought this was Teamliquid where people look at actual data/gameplay.
This argument goes both ways: If that is true then the test i did still shows that HOTS chrono is stronger because a LOTV Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a HOTS Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
This is a "Vacuous truth" falacy: A claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form of claiming that no A in B has C, when there are no As in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room at all.
Saying in your opinion how you think people would not chrono probes as much is completely irrelvant to the fact that the average production boost with chrono is 15% in LOTV compared to the 22% of HOTS.
Since chrono boost is stronger in HOTS than it was in LOTV, you would see the exact same thing you're seeing now but worse if HOTS chrono was added in LOTV. Protoss would be able to get faster upgrades, have acess to more all ins, have the option of a better economy, etc than in lotv. Everything about HOTS chrono is better than LOTV unless you're new to the game and bank 200 nexus energy.
The fact is, if anyone were to chrono out probes with HOTS chrono it would be faster than it is in lotv. Avilo in your situation of saying that you think a protoss player would spend HOTS chrono energy on different things, does not change the outcome of what would actually happen if a protoss player spent all chrono energy on making probes.
On June 21 2016 22:50 Sholip wrote: All that said, I don't think the new Chrono would be stronger than the old one. It can, however, be that T and Z got nerfed more heavily regarding economy, coming into LotV. This is something that may be worth looking into more deeply.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like this to be looked into (by you?)
On June 21 2016 22:50 Sholip wrote: All that said, I don't think the new Chrono would be stronger than the old one. It can, however, be that T and Z got nerfed more heavily regarding economy, coming into LotV. This is something that may be worth looking into more deeply.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like this to be looked into (by you?)
Hmm, I will see what I can do. Problem is, it's not trivial how to compare the two economic systems. I think the cleanest would be to compare old Chrono vs. new Chrono, both starting with 6 workers. Then old MULE vs. new MULE, both with 6; and then old Larva vs. new Larva, with 6. Than look at which was nerfed more heavily. That way, you could see exactly the effect of the macro booster changes (and not the effects of the new economy, if any).
Terran: less minerals per mule and they cant be stacked. So its a big nerf.
And what is very often forgotten, that looking on the plain worker count for terran is not the whole picture. The Mule is a tool to compensate economy disadvantages by design. Terrans have always, apart of the first twelfe seconds in the game, some workers off mining for sim city, and they are thus not mining at all. The mule is at least partrially there to compansate for that.
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
On June 22 2016 03:01 404AlphaSquad wrote: How can a player of Avilos calibre believe the new chrono is stronger?
Because it is objectively stronger?
A few people were pointing out that the timer on HOTS was not updated to the LOTV timer.
If that is true then the test i did still shows that LOTV chrono is stronger because a HOTS Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a LOTV Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
Meaning, yes, LOTV Protoss has an insane economy edge over HOTS Protoss...which is an imbalance...
People wanna keep ad hominem attacking without looking at data/gameplay? OK. I thought this was Teamliquid where people look at actual data/gameplay.
That's a really bad argument. Protoss players in HotS choosing not to chrono probes 100% doesn't make that version of chrono worse. Or do you mean players with bad macro who forget to chrono? People not chronoing key structures still happens in LotV and it's still a big deal.
The argument is even worse than that.
Consider that the HotS-Toss COULD chrono probes 100%. He chooses to chrono something else instead. Thus, he considers whatever else he is chronoing to be more important than chronoing probes. Which means that assuming he is not a very bad player, there is probably a good reason to believe so, especially in builds that have been edged out over longer periods of time. Thus, Mr. HotS is using his chrono in a way that is a least as good, but probably even better than chronoing probes 100% of the time, because he actively chose to do whatever he is doing instead of chronoing probes.
Not that any of that is relevant, though. I see no reason for all races to be equal, or even for income throughout all races to be equal at all points in time. What is relevant is that the game is balanced as a whole, not that every single facet of the game is equal throughout all races. If all Zerg units, structures and upgrades would cost half as many minerals as they currently do, and zerg workers only returned half as many minerals each trip because they eat half of what they are carrying on the way (and zerg start with half as many minerals as the other races), zerg economy would look a lot worse than that of the other races, but literally nothing in the game changes at all.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
I mean 1) its a pretty massive nerf
2) Given how people talks about how people just leave it on the nexus rather than switching it to WG or what ever I don't think it takes any more or less skill than press the mule hotkey on minerals.
3) This isn't a game based on symmetrical balance so I'm not sure why people are insisting that all macro mechanics be treated the same way. Despite the claim that Chrono is stronger than other macro mechanics, protoss is weakest in the early game, so shouldn't something about the toss early game be buffed or something in z/t early game be nerfed? I'm still not sure why people insist on discussing balance on a symmetrical level when the game has 3 very distinctly different races.
3) This isn't a game based on symmetrical balance so I'm not sure why people are insisting that all macro mechanics be treated the same way. Despite the claim that Chrono is stronger than other macro mechanics, protoss is weakest in the early game, so shouldn't something about the toss early game be buffed or something in z/t early game be nerfed? I'm still not sure why people insist on discussing balance on a symmetrical level when the game has 3 very distinctly different races.
- I think most understand that macro mechanics can be diverse. The rest of the game just has to fit to it. As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies. What actually happens once P's decide to work earlier into splash deathball type armies again? I havent seen that alot. Then again it also seems hard to judge balance based on pro games cause rarely you have the impression that two equally skilled players are facing each other. Its mostly just one guy looking way better than the other. So its hard to tell.
- To protoss weakest early game...I must be watching a different starcraft then. From what I am observing Terrans struggle heavily getting any damage done early on while Protoss has gained ground in that regard compared to HOTS. I would assume in HOTS the average damage done early game between same level players was a bit Terran favored. Now it feels Protoss has the upper hand by far.
Point of clarity: the only difference between the LotV mule and the HotS mule is the amount of minerals returned per trip. In LotV, it's 25 and in HotS it's 30 per trip.
Both last 90 blizzard seconds (64 real seconds) - they both make about 9 trips
The LotV mule can bypass the harvester queue and mine over SCVs. However, they cannot mine over each other. So mules stack on SCVs, but they cannot stack over each other. But then this has always been the case.
If I recall correctly, the only time this was not the case was a short time n the beta where they considered making it so that mules had to line up just like SCVs, but this is not currently the case. If this was ever a change, it has been reverted.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
1; Percentage wise it was nerfed the most by far, but it was also probably less important (like a 10% nerf to mule would probably hurt more than a 10% nerf to chrono)
2; Had this discussion before. Still takes some skill, is awkward to use, many people asked for old chrono mechanic. This isn't particularly related to balance unless you want to talk about which races are harder to play and i think there are strong argument for Protoss being hard there (other races have like 1.5x stronger representation at high leagues)
3; it's proportionately much weaker, though, and the early start + being free with nexus only partially offsets that.
4; same as 3
-----
If I recall correctly, the only time this was not the case was a short time n the beta where they considered making it so that mules had to line up just like SCVs, but this is not currently the case. If this was ever a change, it has been reverted.
You may not be able to put 2 mules on the same patch any more without them fighting but that doesn't affect much.
-----
It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies. What actually happens once P's decide to work earlier into splash deathball type armies again? I havent seen that alot.
P is much more warpgate focused now and meta has shifted strongly away from robo and even stargate play in favor of upgraded gateway units with.. more upgrades and light support in the early and midgame. Units like the Colossus are not as strong as they once were and will probably get nerfed if they become a problem with decent gateway units existing.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
I mean 1) its a pretty massive nerf
2) Given how people talks about how people just leave it on the nexus rather than switching it to WG or what ever I don't think it takes any more or less skill than press the mule hotkey on minerals.
3) This isn't a game based on symmetrical balance so I'm not sure why people are insisting that all macro mechanics be treated the same way. Despite the claim that Chrono is stronger than other macro mechanics, protoss is weakest in the early game, so shouldn't something about the toss early game be buffed or something in z/t early game be nerfed? I'm still not sure why people insist on discussing balance on a symmetrical level when the game has 3 very distinctly different races.
It's not a massive nerf. The test i ran shows it's equivalent if not better than HOTS chronoboost. And that test was ran with me doing the HOTS chrono every single time i had 25 energy pop up on the nexus.
This means if even 2-3 of those chronos from HOTS are not used on probes, while the chrono from LOTV is constantly used on probes...the LOTV chrono is giving an INSANE economy lead for P in terms of getting a 2 base saturation.
User was temp banned for consistent balance whining and ignoring all evidence in this and other threads.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
I mean 1) its a pretty massive nerf
2) Given how people talks about how people just leave it on the nexus rather than switching it to WG or what ever I don't think it takes any more or less skill than press the mule hotkey on minerals.
3) This isn't a game based on symmetrical balance so I'm not sure why people are insisting that all macro mechanics be treated the same way. Despite the claim that Chrono is stronger than other macro mechanics, protoss is weakest in the early game, so shouldn't something about the toss early game be buffed or something in z/t early game be nerfed? I'm still not sure why people insist on discussing balance on a symmetrical level when the game has 3 very distinctly different races.
It's not a massive nerf. The test i ran shows it's equivalent if not better than HOTS chronoboost. And that test was ran with me doing the HOTS chrono every single time i had 25 energy pop up on the nexus.
This means if even 2-3 of those chronos from HOTS are not used on probes, while the chrono from LOTV is constantly used on probes...the LOTV chrono is giving an INSANE economy lead for P in terms of getting a 2 base saturation.
What test is this? The HOTS chrono gives ~1.47x more probes per minute on average. We've gone over this half a dozen times and you're just ignoring all of the math
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
I mean 1) its a pretty massive nerf
2) Given how people talks about how people just leave it on the nexus rather than switching it to WG or what ever I don't think it takes any more or less skill than press the mule hotkey on minerals.
3) This isn't a game based on symmetrical balance so I'm not sure why people are insisting that all macro mechanics be treated the same way. Despite the claim that Chrono is stronger than other macro mechanics, protoss is weakest in the early game, so shouldn't something about the toss early game be buffed or something in z/t early game be nerfed? I'm still not sure why people insist on discussing balance on a symmetrical level when the game has 3 very distinctly different races.
It's not a massive nerf. The test i ran shows it's equivalent if not better than HOTS chronoboost. And that test was ran with me doing the HOTS chrono every single time i had 25 energy pop up on the nexus.
This means if even 2-3 of those chronos from HOTS are not used on probes, while the chrono from LOTV is constantly used on probes...the LOTV chrono is giving an INSANE economy lead for P in terms of getting a 2 base saturation.
What test is this? The HOTS chrono gives ~1.47x more probes per minute on average. We've gone over this half a dozen times and you're just ignoring all of the math
He is ignoring all the voices because it does not suit his narrative or his deranged world view in which all odds are stacked against him. And instead of properly arguing for his case with solid facts and evidence, he resorts to putting the "INSANE economy lead for P" in caps. Because writing in caps or raising the voice is the proper thing to do when you run out of arguments.
On June 22 2016 05:55 avilo wrote: [1]Because it is objectively stronger?
[2]A few people were pointing out that the timer on HOTS was not updated to the LOTV timer. If that is true then the test i did still shows that LOTV chrono is stronger because a HOTS Protoss wouldn't be 100% chrono boosting probes, whereas a LOTV Protoss is often times just 100% chronoboosting probes.
[3]Meaning, yes, LOTV Protoss has an insane economy edge over HOTS Protoss...which is an imbalance...
[4]People wanna keep ad hominem attacking without looking at data/gameplay? OK. I thought this was Teamliquid where people look at actual data/gameplay.
Look, you cannot be serious or there is simply no point in trying to argue with you.
1. You don't seem to understand the definition of "objectively". You may want to look it up. If you do understand the definition of the word, you are ignoring all the calculations and arguments made against your idiotic claim without making any efforts to disprove them. The HotS version has a higher average boost as well as more flexibility in how you want to use it on key strategic buildings.
2. No, it does not still show that LotV chrono is better. As someone else already pointed out, if the Protoss decides to use chronoboost on something else instead of probes, it's probably for a very good reason... because something else offers a greater advantage than boosting probes 100% of the game. If you want to argue like that, I could claim that LotV MULE is better because Terrans in HotS were losing more MULES to harass or decided to use scan instead, resulting in lower minerals gained per energy consumption. But hey, I am not making such a claim, because it is fucking stupid and you should feel bad for making such ridiculous statements.
3. 3 does not follow from 2. You seem to be fond of buzzwords like "insane economy advantage". I don't know if you have watched too much Trump or if this is something you always do. Adding "insane" to your point does not improve your argument at all. Even IF the fact that you start with chrono ready were an advantage over the nerfed overall boost and flexibility, it would only be barely so... and that's a capitalized "if" to make you understand how important that word is in that sentence.
4. To be frank, the arguments you are making are absolutely stupid. The statements you are making are absolutely stupid and reflect badly on your displayed intellect. Look at some of the things you are writing:
On June 21 2016 12:56 avilo wrote: In LOTV, most chronoboost usage is on probes because it's on them 100% of the time.
Look at that and tell me that you are serious. And tell me how you can expect to be taken serious after uttering something like that. On top of that you haven't put forward any form of evidence for your claim either. You have not provided any video evidence in the thread that you started. No replays, no VODs from pro players being in that kind of situation, nothing. And yet here you are, criticizing the OP for looking only at data instead of gameplay as well. You lack even the most basic of knowledge in some areas. Either that or you are blatantly posting false information in order to deceive the users of this forum.
On June 22 2016 06:02 BlueStar wrote: I'm not sure... are u trolling or u believe in what u've written Avilo? ;o
Maybe he actually believes that Protoss players are so bad that we missed all our chronos in HOTS. Either way, the winrates don't bear out a huge imbalance so no matter how much "better" he says the new chrono is, it doesn't matter. And I still want my old chrono back, I was really good at spending it all.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
I still have yet to see a single iota of evidence showing how this exponentially growing advantage leads to more wins.
A long write up with lots of math, lingo and fancy formatting doesn't make the implied argument any more compelling to me...but it does give a lot more ammunition to those trying to shoot down avilo...
The graph that's hidden in there near the end is all you really need to look at, and the story it tells isn't near as compelling as people are making it out to be.
You can't look at the chrono change in a vacuum, you have pit it against the macro mechanics of the other races and observe their relative differences (I have a feeling it is much bigger than people think and contributes a lot to both the economic state of PvZ and PvT)...
The new chrono is inflexible and does only one thing well - but what it does well it does nearly as well as the old chrono (given the mechanically average player), and that is chrono out probes.
This combined with the gated macro mechanics of both T/Z, the mule nerf and the larva nerf, goes a long way to close the worker gap that Protoss typically experienced against Z and the income gap that allowed T to get away with expanding at a slightly slower rate.
A stronger study wouldn't look at chrono in a vacuum. It would try to shoot down avilo's argument directly by comparing the LOTV chrono against Terran worker production and demonstrate against income disparity.
All the conclusion of this paper shows me is that the "reduction in effectiveness" people are throwing about doesn't lead to as severe of a difference in income / time as I thought there would be. It's actually quite surprising.
On June 21 2016 23:19 Teoita wrote: I imagine the best way to compare the HotS and LotV would be to check relative worker counts between races (past 12 supply), or better yet relative income (to account for mules), up to full two base saturation for Protoss (third timings changes so they would bias the data), by looking at a a few pro replays for instance.
Obviously that's not conclusive since unit usage has changed greatly and we rely a little more on gateway units, but in terms of raw economy i can't think of a better way.
The new chrono is inflexible and does only one thing well - but what it does well it does nearly as well as the old chrono (given the mechanically average player), and that is chrono out probes.
It also chrono's everything else, but you can't bank it and you can't use multiple nexii to accelerate one thing anymore.
It chrono's out probes ~1.467x slower than the WOL/HOTS chrono.
The only decent argument that i've seen against it is that you get the initial benefit earlier, so there's a period of time in the game (up to perhaps 2-3 minutes) where it's actually as strong or slightly stronger than the old chronoboost before the old chronoboost catches up to the advantage given from the earlier initial probes and is way better for the rest of the game.
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
No one from what I've see has been attacking Avilo personally in this thread, other than picking apart his arguments; the math in this thread doesn't lie. To get to the point, this thread is about how powerful HOTS and LOTV chrono are compared to eachother, but not how they are relative to the current races (which is how this thread is getting derailed a bit).This thread has undeniable proof that the HOTS chrono boost is more flexible and gives a higher production boost than the one in lotv.
To all you guys talking about how protoss is economically further ahead than they were in hots. I agree it's pretty evident when a protoss can standardly get a saturated third when a terran is just landing his. But this has absolutely no bearing on the argument that "lotv chrono is stronger than hots chrono".
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
The bolded part here is something I've wanted to address. I've been reading these threads and this seems to be a pretty big theme. The idea being that, since it is autocast in LotV there is a lot less wasted chrono. This is just ridiculous.
I am in diamond and I am sure well into masters we see chrono being used on warpgate, or +1 or Blink research, and then long after the research is done, the chrono still being autocast on the building for minutes even though the building is doing nothing. Instead of being back in probes, or on gates, or a robo or something useful. I mean past the 4 minute mark, I've noticed a ton of wasted chrono in replays.
The idea that there is somehow less room to "waste" chrono since you cannot let a nexus go up to 100 energy anymore is pretty shallow thinking.
The elephant in the room is photon overcharge: the reason protoss can saturate a 3rd incredibly quickly while still being safe against terran aggression.
Chronoboost is clearly worse in LotV than it was in HotS, but PO is unfathomably better... which goes against everything they were trying to achieve with it.
I think the problem with Protoss is that they 1. Have the most versatile cheese and pressure builds 2. Are almost immune to Terran early game pressure/cheese 3. Always can take a 3rd before Terran due to 1) and 2) 4. Have an insanely supply effective late game 5. Know before the game starts that Terran will go MMM/Liberator so they do not need to account for different play styles.
All this combined makes Protoss much too strong in TvP below Korean pro level. At Korean pro level Terran can compensate by having insane multitasking and micro but for 99.9% of the players that is not the case.
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
I think the difference is probably due to the early game units and what long-term plans each race has in the current meta. HotS was all about strong Terran harass in the early game. It started with Hellbat drops and turned into mine drops later down the line. Protoss also had to get to splash damage as fast as possible in order to be able to compete with Terrans in the mid-game. The focus on tech and trying to make the first 2-3 bases safe against drops and other forms of harass meant that much less income could be diverted to army units. In LotV the roles are not only slightly reversed, Protoss does not have to tech up quite as fast as they used to be. With gateway armies being much more competitive and adept-based harass transitioning much smoother into a stable mid-game army composition, more ressources can be allocated to army instead of pure tech. Recently I have seen a lot of Terrans emphasize getting out Liberators and Siege Tanks quickly, which is the LotV equivalent of a HotS Protoss rushing Colossus or storm. That said, I haven't really noticed the Protoss being up 40 supply in the mid-game as Avilo has claimed... at least not in pro play. Looking at the most recent games in GSL and SSL, both races seemed to have been on par in terms of supply during the mid-game if neither side has taken huge losses early on.
At least that's the explanation I could come up with. There might be other things at work here as well, but I am by no means an expert on that.
We aren't bashing Avilo for the sake of bashing him or because it's fun to do so. I am doing it, because the things he says are plain stupid and there is no other way to describe it. The clings to his view of the world despite all the evidence stacked against it without actually providing any proof or examples of his own. His arguments are flawed and his test was an embarrassment. And instead of providing more and proper arguments and evidence to support his claim, all he does is repeat his points more fiercely or writing his buzzwords in caps without adding anything to it. It is impossible to have a civilized discussion with someone like that. To make matters worse, he is actively spreading misinformation, which is one of the worst things someone with an audience and some form of renown can do.
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
1; Percentage wise it was nerfed the most by far, but it was also probably less important (like a 10% nerf to mule would probably hurt more than a 10% nerf to chrono)
2; Had this discussion before. Still takes some skill, is awkward to use, many people asked for old chrono mechanic. This isn't particularly related to balance unless you want to talk about which races are harder to play and i think there are strong argument for Protoss being hard there (other races have like 1.5x stronger representation at high leagues)
Just percentage wise? We're talking about raw skill needed here. To say, "Still takes some skill", is rather dodgy. It is much less demanding in lotv than in hots. The fact that you can't admit it straight speaks volumes.
Here's what needs to happen, a bit higher "percentage", but maintain the same demand in attention as in hots.
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks. But hey, who cares that playership and viewership for SC2 is getting smaller and smaller.
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
I think the difference is probably due to the early game units and what long-term plans each race has in the current meta. HotS was all about strong Terran harass in the early game. It started with Hellbat drops and turned into mine drops later down the line. Protoss also had to get to splash damage as fast as possible in order to be able to compete with Terrans in the mid-game. The focus on tech and trying to make the first 2-3 bases safe against drops and other forms of harass meant that much less income could be diverted to army units. In LotV the roles are not only slightly reversed, Protoss does not have to tech up quite as fast as they used to be. With gateway armies being much more competitive and adept-based harass transitioning much smoother into a stable mid-game army composition, more ressources can be allocated to army instead of pure tech. Recently I have seen a lot of Terrans emphasize getting out Liberators and Siege Tanks quickly, which is the LotV equivalent of a HotS Protoss rushing Colossus or storm. That said, I haven't really noticed the Protoss being up 40 supply in the mid-game as Avilo has claimed... at least not in pro play. Looking at the most recent games in GSL and SSL, both races seemed to have been on par in terms of supply during the mid-game if neither side has taken huge losses early on.
At least that's the explanation I could come up with. There might be other things at work here as well, but I am by no means an expert on that.
We aren't bashing Avilo for the sake of bashing him or because it's fun to do so. I am doing it, because the things he says are plain stupid and there is no other way to describe it. The clings to his view of the world despite all the evidence stacked against it without actually providing any proof or examples of his own. His arguments are flawed and his test was an embarrassment. And instead of providing more and proper arguments and evidence to support his claim, all he does is repeat his points more fiercely or writing his buzzwords in caps without adding anything to it. It is impossible to have a civilized discussion with someone like that. To make matters worse, he is actively spreading misinformation, which is one of the worst things someone with an audience and some form of renown can do.
100 times this. In fact, in late HotS when pros opened 3gate blink/robo with a quick third and no upgrades, it was also common for Protoss to have a very high army supply in the midgame to hit a timing (i should know, it was the last guide i ever wrote for TL); the main difference was that the main fighting unit were a couple of Colossi instead of ugpraded Adepts; for example this game is actually fairly LotV-esque
Also, why the fuck are people complaining that Chrono takes less skill than in HotS (it does), when a) it was the developer's intent to move focus away from macro mechanics and b) inject is the same since it can be stacked rather than having to hit it perfectly every time? The community (and the general forum in particular) has always been quite biased against protoss because "zomg allins deathballs" but damn, we are reaching some serious levels of hyperboles here, especially when both two base timings and three base turtle are completely gone in LotV.
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
I think the difference is probably due to the early game units and what long-term plans each race has in the current meta. HotS was all about strong Terran harass in the early game. It started with Hellbat drops and turned into mine drops later down the line. Protoss also had to get to splash damage as fast as possible in order to be able to compete with Terrans in the mid-game. The focus on tech and trying to make the first 2-3 bases safe against drops and other forms of harass meant that much less income could be diverted to army units. In LotV the roles are not only slightly reversed, Protoss does not have to tech up quite as fast as they used to be. With gateway armies being much more competitive and adept-based harass transitioning much smoother into a stable mid-game army composition, more ressources can be allocated to army instead of pure tech. Recently I have seen a lot of Terrans emphasize getting out Liberators and Siege Tanks quickly, which is the LotV equivalent of a HotS Protoss rushing Colossus or storm. That said, I haven't really noticed the Protoss being up 40 supply in the mid-game as Avilo has claimed... at least not in pro play. Looking at the most recent games in GSL and SSL, both races seemed to have been on par in terms of supply during the mid-game if neither side has taken huge losses early on.
At least that's the explanation I could come up with. There might be other things at work here as well, but I am by no means an expert on that.
We aren't bashing Avilo for the sake of bashing him or because it's fun to do so. I am doing it, because the things he says are plain stupid and there is no other way to describe it. The clings to his view of the world despite all the evidence stacked against it without actually providing any proof or examples of his own. His arguments are flawed and his test was an embarrassment. And instead of providing more and proper arguments and evidence to support his claim, all he does is repeat his points more fiercely or writing his buzzwords in caps without adding anything to it. It is impossible to have a civilized discussion with someone like that. To make matters worse, he is actively spreading misinformation, which is one of the worst things someone with an audience and some form of renown can do.
Bingo. There's a reason avilo is hated, well two actually but the one most people here have is he won't listen to reason, he won't ever admit that he's wrong and if he's called out on his bs he just rehashes the same bs but louder.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If I were in charge of balance for Blizzard given his tantrums I'd take everything he asks for or suggests and do the EXACT opposite to it, because frankly the sooner his toxicity is out of our game, the better off everyone will be
As posted earlier I still dont understand what actually makes up for LOTV Terran playing with lower supply compared to Protoss, when in HOTS it was the T beeing ahead in that regard. Tankivacs cant be the reason so only Liberator is left. It just feils weird seeing Terrans getting destroyed by warpgate armies.
I think we are really onto something strange here, when discussing this with others they have pointed out that adepts are allowing protoss to get away with more greedy builds but I disagree with them since terran's too have used somewhat more greedy builds in lotv, on the other hand the colosus nerf mitigates this effect of boosted protoss economy by preventing them from capitalizing on it as they could before. I think more experimentation is in order.
All of you people attacking avilo personally because you don't agree with him should really reconsider the way you communicate, it's honestly making me sick. He is making arguments and devoting his time to experimentation and you are ridiculing him...its really sad
edit: my terran mind automatically put this into a tvp perspective
I think the difference is probably due to the early game units and what long-term plans each race has in the current meta. HotS was all about strong Terran harass in the early game. It started with Hellbat drops and turned into mine drops later down the line. Protoss also had to get to splash damage as fast as possible in order to be able to compete with Terrans in the mid-game. The focus on tech and trying to make the first 2-3 bases safe against drops and other forms of harass meant that much less income could be diverted to army units. In LotV the roles are not only slightly reversed, Protoss does not have to tech up quite as fast as they used to be. With gateway armies being much more competitive and adept-based harass transitioning much smoother into a stable mid-game army composition, more ressources can be allocated to army instead of pure tech. Recently I have seen a lot of Terrans emphasize getting out Liberators and Siege Tanks quickly, which is the LotV equivalent of a HotS Protoss rushing Colossus or storm. That said, I haven't really noticed the Protoss being up 40 supply in the mid-game as Avilo has claimed... at least not in pro play. Looking at the most recent games in GSL and SSL, both races seemed to have been on par in terms of supply during the mid-game if neither side has taken huge losses early on.
At least that's the explanation I could come up with. There might be other things at work here as well, but I am by no means an expert on that.
We aren't bashing Avilo for the sake of bashing him or because it's fun to do so. I am doing it, because the things he says are plain stupid and there is no other way to describe it. The clings to his view of the world despite all the evidence stacked against it without actually providing any proof or examples of his own. His arguments are flawed and his test was an embarrassment. And instead of providing more and proper arguments and evidence to support his claim, all he does is repeat his points more fiercely or writing his buzzwords in caps without adding anything to it. It is impossible to have a civilized discussion with someone like that. To make matters worse, he is actively spreading misinformation, which is one of the worst things someone with an audience and some form of renown can do.
100 times this. In fact, in late HotS when pros opened 3gate blink/robo with a quick third and no upgrades, it was also common for Protoss to have a very high army supply in the midgame to hit a timing (i should know, it was the last guide i ever wrote for TL); the main difference was that the main fighting unit were a couple of Colossi instead of ugpraded Adepts; for example this game is actually fairly LotV-esque
Exactly this, thank You.
We might say that Adepts in LotV somewhat replaces collosus in HotS. That's way most Protoss players skips AoE for long time and stay pure gateway, because adepts allow for trading efficiently vs bio similarly as collosus did.
The thing is no one has very accurately proved or disproved anything regarding this subject yet but Avilo is the only one to take the heat? Plain stupidity and sheep herd mentality.
On June 22 2016 19:02 VonComet wrote: The thing is no one has very accurately proved or disproved anything regarding this subject yet but Avilo is the only one to take the heat? Plain stupidity and sheep herd mentality.
Did you even read the OP and following posts that conclusively prove that Avilo is wrong (as he often is)?
On June 22 2016 07:20 kill3r_cro wrote: So to summize:
1. chrono boost was not nerfed as hard as terran and zerg macro mechanichs 2. it's autocast and doesnt require any skill (we seen how that worked out with zerg and how fast was that removed) 3. it arrives at zero seconds in game, while zerg and terran needs to unlock theirs macro boosters, we all know that macro advantage exponentaly grows through game 4. new expansions arrives macro booster ready, while terran needs to upgrade cc to oc and zerg need to get queen there or create one
gg
1; Percentage wise it was nerfed the most by far, but it was also probably less important (like a 10% nerf to mule would probably hurt more than a 10% nerf to chrono)
2; Had this discussion before. Still takes some skill, is awkward to use, many people asked for old chrono mechanic. This isn't particularly related to balance unless you want to talk about which races are harder to play and i think there are strong argument for Protoss being hard there (other races have like 1.5x stronger representation at high leagues)
Just percentage wise? We're talking about raw skill needed here. To say, "Still takes some skill", is rather dodgy. It is much less demanding in lotv than in hots. The fact that you can't admit it straight speaks volumes.
Here's what needs to happen, a bit higher "percentage", but maintain the same demand in attention as in hots.
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks. But hey, who cares that playership and viewership for SC2 is getting smaller and smaller.
Calling someone else 'biased' while making the most bias most post in the universe.... whatever the irony is probably lost....
So what it comes down to is avlio and those who believe Protoss takes 'no skill', they think that any kind of buff to Protoss in any kind of avenue is disgusting... despite the actual nerfs LoTV Protoss has undergone in most other avenues. They seem to have blacked out the whole beta where it was specifically talked about reducing Potoss army and allin power in favor of macro.
'OMG guise did you REALISE that LoTV chronoboost is ACTUALLY a BUFF for bad players?! Holy fucking shit I'm 6 months into an expansion and I'm now only realizing that it's now EASIER for a Protoss to take an expansion!??? H-have you seen disiss?'
The entire main idea of LoTV.... to 'normalize' Protoss, reduce their allin and tech power in favor of more macro oriented play, that happened. We had sweeping nerfs to warp gate and robo units... which were then turned around and called 'buffs' and then nerfed further. Chrono was nerfed in a way that was not only especially detrimental to timings and upgrades but also to economy.... Unless you're like the typical HoTS Protoss and literally NEVER used it....so as avlio says it's actually a buff... face...palm.
Just percentage wise? We're talking about raw skill needed here. To say, "Still takes some skill", is rather dodgy. It is much less demanding in lotv than in hots. The fact that you can't admit it straight speaks volumes.
The 2nd idea was to reduce Protoss' '1A' effectiveness. Nerfs to the Collosus, introduction of the Disruptor.... there's no argument that LoTV Protoss has more micro than HoTS, but we still have people here who are living in the past, who will probably never acknowledged that Protoss takes any skill at all... 'I don't care about how many more spells you have to cast! Chronoboost is easier now! it needs the same amount of attention span as hots, Protoss can't have buffs'.
So after all that... the nerfing of army and tech pillars, basically getting what everyone wanted, an economy buff is, as avlio put in his original post 'an oversight' from Blizzard.....
You're about 8 months too late... and also completely wrong.
On June 22 2016 13:06 BronzeKnee wrote: Maybe he actually believes that Protoss players are so bad that we missed all our chronos in HOTS. Either way, the winrates don't bear out a huge imbalance so no matter how much "better" he says the new chrono is, it doesn't matter. And I still want my old chrono back, I was really good at spending it all.
This is the funniest thing to me.
Though I have no statistical evidence, I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of high-level (and even mid-level) Protoss would much prefer to have the flexibility, ease of use, and stack-ability of the HotS Chronoboost mechanic over the LotV mechanic.
A nerfed (to current levels) HotS chronoboost in LotV would be most welcome by a lot of Protoss players, I suspect.
Here's what the numbers would have to be to make them equivalent:
- HotS chronoboost restored in LotV (cast from Nexus, Nexus has 100 max energy, costs 25 energy to cast) - New chronoboost does 26.6625 (HotS) seconds of work over 20 (HotS) seconds (which effectively is a 14.99% boost, a very slight nerf from today's 15% boost)
And I'd love having that mechanic back instead of the clunky thing we've got now.
Continuous chronoboosting from saved chronos (on one or multiple nexii) would bring the boost up to a maximum of 33.3125% ... roughly a 1/3 (local) production boost could be afforded if a player scrimped and scrounged from earlier possible usages. HotS chrono would have been 50%, locally.
EDIT: The new chrono hover-text could read "boosts production by 33% for 20 seconds" or something similar.
On June 23 2016 00:51 Cyro wrote: I think so too. If you started the nexus with energy for 1 chrono then it would be even stronger in every way, as well as being better designed IMO.
I'd be ok with any (25 or less) amount of starting energy for the nexus. 0-24 would be a way to compensate for the possibility of early-chronoboosted tech (like oracles, or +1 & glaives).
On June 22 2016 17:02 deth wrote: The elephant in the room is photon overcharge: the reason protoss can saturate a 3rd incredibly quickly while still being safe against terran aggression.
Chronoboost is clearly worse in LotV than it was in HotS, but PO is unfathomably better... which goes against everything they were trying to achieve with it.
I remember one of the first times I played the HOTS beta, a Terran player built 3 raxes early and sent a one base stim timing at me while expanding. Those kind of builds took skill to hold in WOL, you had to scout it, build units and then micro well. But on that day all I had to do was press F and click on my Nexus. A little bit of me died that day, and my love for SC2 waned considerably. Photon Overcharge is so bad for the game.
You don't even have to scout so many early timings past WOL because Photon Overcharge is so strong.
And yes, PO is the reason Protoss can expand so quickly.
There's some stuff that does require scouting and good micro but it's more rare. You could say similar stuff about terran and zerg really; it's easy to defend more bases in LOTV. Zerg open blind 3 hatch before pool all of the time and you can't really do much about it.
That's just how LOTV was designed to be played. I didn't want either PO or chrono boost / mules if it was going to be optimal to expand so quickly but here we are
On June 22 2016 17:02 deth wrote: The elephant in the room is photon overcharge: the reason protoss can saturate a 3rd incredibly quickly while still being safe against terran aggression.
Chronoboost is clearly worse in LotV than it was in HotS, but PO is unfathomably better... which goes against everything they were trying to achieve with it.
without pylon overcharge liberator harass would be absurd
The comparison of the new chronoboost to the old chronoboost is fundamentally flawed. Macro mechanics were nerfed across the board and macro mechanic strength should be considered in that context because otherwise you're ignoring that your non-mirror opponents economies have been nerfed as well. A better question would be comparing the two mechanics according to the 'rules' of the lotv macro mechanics, that is the % reduction in strength being equal.
No matter what, chrono in lotv is weaker than in hots. That's just the nature of macro mechanics in void. The new mechanic could and from napkin math probably does lessen the impact of the nerf to chrono at least in terms of the economy.
The objections to passive vs active start aren't good assumptions either. Just like there was no form of compensation for terran orbital commands finishing later (and thus starting to generate energy later) there would likely be no form of compensation for protoss where it started with 25 energy or something.
Some people are still mixing up design vs balance as well.
----
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks
Protoss is massively underrepresented at high masters through platinum level. What evidence are you using to claim that protoss is easier to play at the same level as the other races?
At masters and diamond worldwide there are ~4887 terrans, ~4534 zerg and ~3164 protoss by rankedftw.com 's numbers.
There is a lot of protoss hate around starcraft communities these days; i think it's both the most hated and least represented race. I would like to see some polls on the subject.
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks
Protoss is massively underrepresented at high masters through platinum level. What evidence are you using to claim that protoss is easier to play at the same level as the other races?
At masters and diamond worldwide there are ~4887 terrans, ~4534 zerg and ~3164 protoss by rankedftw.com 's numbers.
There is a lot of protoss hate around starcraft communities these days; i think it's both the most hated and least represented race. I would like to see some polls on the subject.
I personally think the downfall of SC2 as a game (and a large reason why I stopped playing) is because of the "youtube generation" of screaming/acting like pewdiepie on stream has unfortunately given people like Avilo an opportunity to falsely label Protoss as an "easy" race to his wide range of (new to starcraft) followers, thus ruining any chance of any protoss having respect in the community. Unless you are a Korean BW player using protoss, good luck having anyone recognise your skill. People even consider MC and PartinG as "cheesers" because of their race, despite being easily the two most lethal decision-makers in the game and serious top 3 control. The community in this game is so brain-washed by listening to these attention-seeking twitch players who will say anything to get in the spotlight.
And of course, as I say to everyone who says Protoss is "ez mode".. if its so easy, why don't you play it and win a WCS with protoss??? (Talking mainly to the "pros" who complain, like Avilo for instance) - I know as a protoss player, I switched to terran and built mass marines everygame to get to GM in WoL, so why can't they all do it the other way around if its that easy?? And of course, everyone brings up the Scarlett-DRG game, but lets face it; Scarlett is the best foreigner since Elky; of course she can offrace with either terran or protoss and have a high percentage chance at winning anything.
I personally think the downfall of SC2 as a game (and a large reason why I stopped playing) is because of the "youtube generation" of screaming/acting like pewdiepie on stream has unfortunately given people like Avilo an opportunity to falsely label Protoss as an "easy" race to his wide range of (new to starcraft) followers, thus ruining any chance of any protoss having respect in the community. Unless you are a Korean BW player using protoss, good luck having anyone recognise your skill. People even consider MC and PartinG as "cheesers" because of their race, despite being easily the two most lethal decision-makers in the game and serious top 3 control. The community in this game is so brain-washed by listening to these attention-seeking twitch players who will say anything to get in the spotlight.
THANK YOU for writing this <3 I'm actively involved in starcraft for about 15 years now and I completely feel the same.
And it really hurts me to see how the general mind set has moved to whining instead of innovating trying and building your own game and play style.
On June 23 2016 16:17 TheWinks wrote: The comparison of the new chronoboost to the old chronoboost is fundamentally flawed. ... A better question would be comparing the two mechanics according to the 'rules' of the lotv macro mechanics, that is the % reduction in strength being equal.
The comparison is perfectly valid to disprove the claim mentioned in this thread that some people are making: "LotV chrono is better than HotS chrono." That claim is simply wrong.
While there may be more interesting questions (like who benefited the most from the 12-worker starts and macro nerfs), they simply aren't answered by this thread -- that doesn't make this thread worthless or flawed in any way. It just means that there are more interesting questions to ask.
Those questions, inevitably, are more difficult to answer than the claim addressed by this thread. So this thread provides a valuable service in disproving the initial claim that LotV Chrono is simply better.
More work could be done to discover the relationship between the nerfs and the new eco across all three races, but that will likely be the work of months (if not years) and come to a much more murky conclusion than "LotV Chrono is demonstrably worse than HotS Chrono." -- and, like others have mentioned, if there is a significant advantage to any particular race it certainly hasn't shown up in win-rates or representation yet so the analysis of "which race got it better" might not even be relevant.
On June 23 2016 16:17 TheWinks wrote: The comparison of the new chronoboost to the old chronoboost is fundamentally flawed. ... A better question would be comparing the two mechanics according to the 'rules' of the lotv macro mechanics, that is the % reduction in strength being equal.
More work could be done to discover the relationship between the nerfs and the new eco across all three races
You don't need a cross racial comparison to do that here, just an understanding that because everyone had their macro mechanics nerfed you should consider the mechanic change in that context. 6 trip mules were a better mechanic for terran than 9 trip mules because you never lost minerals on the return trip, but comparing the lotv 6 trip mules to the hots 9 trip mules would be silly. Sadly that change was reverted in beta for some reason.
since you mention it, i'm pretty sure i've heard a few times about MC having KR high masters or even GM level terran offrace. A lot of the best pros can/could offrace very well.
On June 24 2016 00:35 TheWinks wrote: You don't need a cross racial comparison to do that here, just an understanding that because everyone had their macro mechanics nerfed you should consider the mechanic change in that context.
Genuinely confused here ... if we don't need a comparison, then how are we considering things in-context? Context to what, exactly?
The mule comparison is just mules to mules (exactly like this chronoboost discussion), so I'm not sure what that is intended to show either ...
since you mention it, i'm pretty sure i've heard a few times about MC having KR high masters or even GM level terran offrace. A lot of the best pros can/could offrace very well.
Exactly.. this game is more about intelligence and decision making than it is about pure macro ability. Those traits carry over from all 3 races, and its why the absolute top players win out of pure instincts in RTS games, rather than some mythological macro skill that only zergs can handle. The absolute top level players, they dont just follow the latest PartinG or Innovation build order and get grand masters/win tournaments.. They actually design their own builds, and "ADAPT" to situations in the game, something that this generation of RTS players seem to lack.
Should probably add to this that doing the same build for ~5 years and whining when it doesnt work, is NOT how to be a "pro".
On June 23 2016 16:42 Cyro wrote: Some people are still mixing up design vs balance as well.
----
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks
Protoss is massively underrepresented at high masters through platinum level. What evidence are you using to claim that protoss is easier to play at the same level as the other races?
At masters and diamond worldwide there are ~4887 terrans, ~4534 zerg and ~3164 protoss by rankedftw.com 's numbers.
There is a lot of protoss hate around starcraft communities these days; i think it's both the most hated and least represented race. I would like to see some polls on the subject.
I personally think the downfall of SC2 as a game (and a large reason why I stopped playing) is because of the "youtube generation" of screaming/acting like pewdiepie on stream has unfortunately given people like Avilo an opportunity to falsely label Protoss as an "easy" race to his wide range of (new to starcraft) followers, thus ruining any chance of any protoss having respect in the community. Unless you are a Korean BW player using protoss, good luck having anyone recognise your skill. People even consider MC and PartinG as "cheesers" because of their race, despite being easily the two most lethal decision-makers in the game and serious top 3 control. The community in this game is so brain-washed by listening to these attention-seeking twitch players who will say anything to get in the spotlight.
And of course, as I say to everyone who says Protoss is "ez mode".. if its so easy, why don't you play it and win a WCS with protoss??? (Talking mainly to the "pros" who complain, like Avilo for instance) - I know as a protoss player, I switched to terran and built mass marines everygame to get to GM in WoL, so why can't they all do it the other way around if its that easy?? And of course, everyone brings up the Scarlett-DRG game, but lets face it; Scarlett is the best foreigner since Elky; of course she can offrace with either terran or protoss and have a high percentage chance at winning anything.
protoss has been labeled an easy race since IdrA aka since wol release.
On June 24 2016 00:37 Cyro wrote: @SnowfaLL
since you mention it, i'm pretty sure i've heard a few times about MC having KR high masters or even GM level terran offrace. A lot of the best pros can/could offrace very well.
after bomber got eliminated by Seed in Code A he streamed as protoss and beat many top 50 KR GM players by adept allining every game :D not saying protoss is ez but that was quite funny.
On June 23 2016 16:42 Cyro wrote: Some people are still mixing up design vs balance as well.
----
Of course, most biased Protoss players can't accept that since that might mean they fall down in ladder ranks
Protoss is massively underrepresented at high masters through platinum level. What evidence are you using to claim that protoss is easier to play at the same level as the other races?
At masters and diamond worldwide there are ~4887 terrans, ~4534 zerg and ~3164 protoss by rankedftw.com 's numbers.
There is a lot of protoss hate around starcraft communities these days; i think it's both the most hated and least represented race. I would like to see some polls on the subject.
I personally think the downfall of SC2 as a game (and a large reason why I stopped playing) is because of the "youtube generation" of screaming/acting like pewdiepie on stream has unfortunately given people like Avilo an opportunity to falsely label Protoss as an "easy" race to his wide range of (new to starcraft) followers, thus ruining any chance of any protoss having respect in the community. Unless you are a Korean BW player using protoss, good luck having anyone recognise your skill. People even consider MC and PartinG as "cheesers" because of their race, despite being easily the two most lethal decision-makers in the game and serious top 3 control. The community in this game is so brain-washed by listening to these attention-seeking twitch players who will say anything to get in the spotlight.
And of course, as I say to everyone who says Protoss is "ez mode".. if its so easy, why don't you play it and win a WCS with protoss??? (Talking mainly to the "pros" who complain, like Avilo for instance) - I know as a protoss player, I switched to terran and built mass marines everygame to get to GM in WoL, so why can't they all do it the other way around if its that easy?? And of course, everyone brings up the Scarlett-DRG game, but lets face it; Scarlett is the best foreigner since Elky; of course she can offrace with either terran or protoss and have a high percentage chance at winning anything.
protoss has been labeled an easy race since IdrA aka since wol release. .
One thing I learned about TL is you can't mention that name in a negative aspect, it gets you banned. He has too many followers. Of course, if Avilo just started going on about his whining alone, no one would care - but with 4 years of reinforced from the early WoL "voices" of the game.. thats the main issue.
Your whole argument is flawed because the premise is wrong.
The old Chrono Boost cycle lasts approximately 45 game seconds; this is the time the Nexus needs to regenerate 25 energy. This means, out of every 45 gs, 20 gs is active Chrono time, meaning Chrono Boost is active on its target about 45% of the time (not exactly "only a short while"). This results an overall average boost of 50% * 0.45 = 22% (approximately). This is obviously more than the 15% increase of the new LotV Chrono, so even in first approximation, the old one seems to be significantly more effective.
You did a mistake because energy regeneration is 0.8/s in HotS not in LotV. The wiki page is outdated, you thought it was so you further divided the value by 1.4 which is wrong, the value is already HotS scaled. The old chronoboost cycle actually lasts 31 seconds, which means 64.5% effectiveness over time which equals to a 34.5% perma-chrono.
Also i think it's pointless to compare an un-nerfed HotS chronoboost to its nerfed LotV counterpart. We can't know how much it would have been nerfed if it was brought to lotv, we can only assume it, but we can say for sure it would receive its nerf like the other MMs.
Finally i think it's important to account for human error when comparing the two, the old chrono requires attention and apm and it lose its value if you get supply blocked, while the new one it's set and forget.
On June 30 2016 00:09 bbqs wrote: You did a mistake because energy regeneration is 0.8/s in HotS not in LotV. The wiki page is outdated, you thought it was so you further divided the value by 1.4 which is wrong, the value is already HotS scaled.
Energy regeneration in HotS is 0.5625 energy per second. The wiki page has been updated, which you can see easily.
Alternatively, you could open the editor and check.
On June 30 2016 00:09 bbqs wrote: You did a mistake because energy regeneration is 0.8/s in HotS not in LotV. The wiki page is outdated, you thought it was so you further divided the value by 1.4 which is wrong, the value is already HotS scaled.
Energy regeneration in HotS is 0.5625 energy per second. The wiki page has been updated, which you can see easily.
Alternatively, you could open the editor and check.
Why do you post before even checking yourself? The chronoboost cycle is 31 seconds, which means 0.8 energy/second. The wiki page says 0.8/s which means it's not updated. Open a HotS custom game and verify it yourself, first chrono at 0.30, second chrono ready at 1.01 .
On June 30 2016 03:16 bbqs wrote: Why do you post before even checking yourself? The chronoboost cycle is 31 seconds, which means 0.8 energy/second. The wiki page says 0.8/s which means it's not updated. Open a HotS custom game and verify it yourself, first chrono at 0.30, second chrono ready at 1.01 .
You're confusing duration of the ability with regeneration of energy.
Energy Regeneration and Chrono Boost Of course, you can only continuously apply chronoboost if your nexus has the energy for it. A nexus regenerates 0.5625 energy per second, so one nexus regenerates the 25 energy required for Chrono Boost every 45 seconds (approximately). Normally:
45 (game seconds)= 45 (game seconds of work) As we saw earlier, each Chronoboost allows you to get an extra 10 seconds of work done.
45 (game seconds)= 55 (game seconds of work) This is a factor of 55/45=1.2222 faster, or 22%.
One nexus is therefore capable of reducing production time by about 22% over the long term if a Chrono Boost is used as much as possible. (The speed will be slightly different if the research/production time is not a factor of 55). So regardless of the fact that Chrono Boost only takes 20 seconds itself, with a single nexus, only one Chrono Boost can be spent every 45 seconds.
Alternatively, again, you could open the editor and see that energy regenerates at 0.5625 energy per second.
And, if you don't trust all that, you could also go back and look at posts made (and not edited) since WoL's days where the same kind of math is done:
In particular, in the "Conclusions & Important Timings" we have:
CB and Nexus -Empty Nexi (Ei=0). You can get 1 CB every 45 seconds.
25 energy / 45 seconds = 0.55555555555~ energy per second (the author of this post has rounded the time to 45 seconds because, even though energy regenerates at 0.5625 energy per second, you don't actually get the 25th energy you need until the clock has ticked on the 45th second ... the "pure" number would be 44.44444444~ seconds).
Or, you can look below a few comments and see this:
But whatever, some ppl might like, but you are missing one thing: Nexus regenerate 25 ene in roughly 45 sec (45*0,5625= ~25), so using energy from single nexus you can boost something by 50% for 20 seconds every 45 sec, so one nexus is capable of boosting something by 22% in total using constant chrono boost (50%*20/45) if no energy was saved.
The old Chrono Boost cycle lasts approximately 45 game seconds; this is the time the Nexus needs to regenerate 25 energy. This means, out of every 45 gs, 20 gs is active Chrono time, meaning Chrono Boost is active on its target about 45% of the time (not exactly "only a short while"). This results an overall average boost of 50% * 0.45 = 22% (approximately). This is obviously more than the 15% increase of the new LotV Chrono, so even in first approximation, the old one seems to be significantly more effective.
You did a mistake because energy regeneration is 0.8/s in HotS not in LotV. The wiki page is outdated, you thought it was so you further divided the value by 1.4 which is wrong, the value is already HotS scaled. The old chronoboost cycle actually lasts 31 seconds, which means 64.5% effectiveness over time which equals to a 34.5% perma-chrono.
Also i think it's pointless to compare an un-nerfed HotS chronoboost to its nerfed LotV counterpart. We can't know how much it would have been nerfed if it was brought to lotv, we can only assume it, but we can say for sure it would receive its nerf like the other MMs.
Finally i think it's important to account for human error when comparing the two, the old chrono requires attention and apm and it lose its value if you get supply blocked, while the new one it's set and forget.
The point of the whole post was to show that the new Chrono is weaker than the old one, and nothing more. I agree that it doesn't say a lot in the context of the game, because as you said, other MMs have been nerfed as well. I only wanted to point out that, as I have said a few times now, it is not a buff, contrary to what some others believed. And yes, I know that the new Chrono is simpler to use and harder to forget in the HotS sense, but it also comes with a good amount of drawbacks, as more Nexi's Chronos cannot be focused on a single structure, energy cannot be banked for future important upgrades/remaxes, forgetting it on inactive structures results in permanent loss of opportunity, and it's generally clumsier to use (in my opinion).
On June 30 2016 00:09 bbqs wrote: You did a mistake because energy regeneration is 0.8/s in HotS not in LotV. The wiki page is outdated, you thought it was so you further divided the value by 1.4 which is wrong, the value is already HotS scaled.
Energy regeneration in HotS is 0.5625 energy per second. The wiki page has been updated, which you can see easily.
Alternatively, you could open the editor and check.
Why do you post before even checking yourself? The chronoboost cycle is 31 seconds, which means 0.8 energy/second. The wiki page says 0.8/s which means it's not updated. Open a HotS custom game and verify it yourself, first chrono at 0.30, second chrono ready at 1.01 .
Also, I did read your post on Battle.net, but it's you that makes the mistake with the energy regeneration rates, not me. The energy regeneration rate is 0.5625 per faster game second in HotS. The wiki is updated, and that's why it says 0.7875 for LotV (which is approximately 0.8, but not quite). That's why a Chrono cycle lasts about 45 game seconds, which, by the way, you can verify yourself if you open up a HotS custom game.
Also, I did read your post on Battle.net, but it's you that makes the mistake with the energy regeneration rates, not me. The energy regeneration rate is 0.5625 per faster game second in HotS. The wiki is updated, and that's why it says 0.7875 for LotV (which is approximately 0.8, but not quite). That's why a Chrono cycle lasts about 45 game seconds, which, by the way, you can [i]verify yourself if you open up a HotS custom game.
My bad, there is a bug in the mod i used to test it in game (salt mod) where the energy regen is LotV but the time is HotS.
It is not quite that simple. With hots chrono it would take 30 second to gain energy and doesn't matter, that overall boost is 22%. Because lotv provides more constant boost. U have one worker per 14.45 and he can already mine, with hots chronoboost u wouldn't have that worker mining, but than he would pop faster. But because you have these faster workers, it boosts you to taking natural and than you have new mineral line, which provides more income. Thorough topic, but to get it exactly accurate, you would have to literally count everything from start of the game, first worker is about 2.55 second faster, so he delivers a bit sooner. Lotv chronoboost is part of imbalance, because there is simply nothing else, which would cause, about that lot bigger economy than terran, just see graphs, protoss has more income from start of the game.
@terranosaurus i did the math for this earlier and it's an advantage for a couple minutes before the faster rate of worker production overall catches up on income, gets more income and closes the mineral gap
Human error does not factor into the capabilities of a race and HOTS chrono boost is not hard to use perfectly or at least near-perfectly for the first 5 minutes of a game. It's easier than larvae inject.
On June 30 2016 06:02 terranosaurus wrote: It is not quite that simple. With hots chrono it would take 30 second to gain energy and doesn't matter, that overall boost is 22%. Because lotv provides more constant boost. U have one worker per 14.45 and he can already mine, with hots chronoboost u wouldn't have that worker mining, but than he would pop faster. But because you have these faster workers, it boosts you to taking natural and than you have new mineral line, which provides more income. Thorough topic, but to get it exactly accurate, you would have to literally count everything from start of the game, first worker is about 2.55 second faster, so he delivers a bit sooner. Lotv chronoboost is part of imbalance, because there is simply nothing else, which would cause, about that lot bigger economy than terran, just see graphs, protoss has more income from start of the game.
I see.
Now I am angry that Zealots are double the cost of the Marines and plan to make a video about it. Do you have a solution?
Marines can even hit air units and are not melee units, can you believe they are half the cost Zealots?
On June 30 2016 08:15 Cyro wrote: Human error does not factor into the capabilities of a race and HOTS chrono boost is not hard to use perfectly or at least near-perfectly for the first 5 minutes of a game. It's easier than larvae inject.
1) you're speculating based on no evidence 2) the absurd implication that, beyond 5 minutes, stacking up chrono energy is negligible
I'm not and i didn't say anything about beyond 5 minutes. It's much more complicated to say how much better the old chrono is further into the game because it's actually optimal to bank and stack it very early in the game.
I'm just glad didn't put in the "macro crutches" as some called it. Aka auto inject, auto mule, and they did keep it for protoss but lowered the speed so its fair. However I do feel like Zerg should get slowed down in some way. I have games where I've killed larva, drones, a queen or 2, and sometimes even a hatchery with a hellbat push, and from there they still drone up way faster than I can keep up with. 12 worker start benefits zerg a lot more than some would think because now you dont need 20+ to mine minerals. Thats 6 less drones they need to make, aka 6 less larva to spend. I'm not saying go with 3 larva from inject, or whatever that number was??. I was thinking something like 1 less larva off the first hatch. Or start them with 0 instead of 3? I know this probably sounds silly and in korea zerg is in a slump. But at a high dia/low master level im really having trouble killing them even if i do MASSIVE dmg. The only time they cant catch up is if I either kill them, or kill the hatch when they did not take a fast 3rd.
Oh and @ cyro's post above mine. It all depends on how the game plays out. When i was playing toss, if i was free to get up to 3-4 base in hots, I would try to bank 50 on each nexus to be timed with my attack, That way i can crono army out.. Saving energy in the late game felt more ideal, assuming there was no more research or probes to push out faster.
lol retard, titling something the "myth" doesnt validate your point at all. having a permanent chrono boost running, every second of the entire game length, is clearly a buff #logic #debuffed
> To make the two compatible, we can discard the first few minutes of HotS games, and start observing once the 12th Probe is finished. This way, we start at 12 workers in both cases
this is definitely a wrong assumption, hence all conclusions based on it are flawed (they still might be incidentally correct, but the derivation is not). The reason the assumption is wrong: You cannot compare the two chronoboost mechanisms independent of their respective context. The difference in worker count to start with is such a context.
> Kinda nerdy to do such type of research, especially considering it's really high quality in both form and content defenitely cool stuff)
A typical bias. High quality form makes you conclude the content is high quality too. But since the author gives it a scientific touch, it raises scientific expectations. And there are some serious flaws in the argumentation, as others have pointed out. As has already been suggested I too believe the best way to compare is to look at the _relative_ strengths of chronoboost compared to other races pre- and post-lotv. Which is of course quite difficult to do. Too many dependent variables....
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tJGb9Q2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xyJorH4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/viZLs9a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cZKE6cl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mWdvAvF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J7soFVs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QKoMEcS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YnN8fm7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B3OYWDf.jpg)
