|
On February 26 2017 01:03 todespolka wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 00:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Colossi aren't a problem, just badly designed. Instead of having instantly value you need a critical mass, otherwise the bio player can easily snipe them.
Aka a deathball unit. You describe the situation, where both sides have uneven army. The terran has a lot of marauders and protoss has nothing to stop them. In an even scenario terran has not enough marauders, if he tries to catch collossus, he loses a lot of units, when protoss retreats with his collossus. Watch games of stats vs terran. He plays collossus based and has a lot of success. If it was easy to stop 1-2 collossus, terranes would kill stats easily.
Ok sure it's not that easy to simply kill the colossus in standard play, but how often do we see one or two colossi being a little bit out of position and a small group of bio taking them out? I think that's a problem tbh.
It creates the deathball phenomenon. Disruptors are more bursty which is better in this regard, the problem of that unit is that you simply cannot guarantee that it does any dmg at all.
|
On February 26 2017 00:13 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2017 23:51 Charoisaur wrote:On February 25 2017 21:37 egrimm wrote:
Nerf to +shield on WMs warmly welcomed from design standpoint.
If balance in PvT is the concern then why not also nerf adepts? Win - Win situation. I'd prefer a collossus nerf. adepts aren't that much of a problem anymore. I don't see in which world colossi are a problem. Disruptors transition after 3 colossi are strong but nothing worrisome if you ask me. On the other hand, mass adepts floods are already kinda problematic and will undoubtedly be broken if the mine nerf goes through. So all in all, some adept nerf (more severe than the vision change that didn't really do much ; not cancellable shade or straight nerf to the unit) would be a wiser move in complement to the WM nerf imo.
just from what I see in pro games terran rarely wins if protoss gets a big army with 3-4 collossus without having taken any damage. Especially Stats' games in the GSL and on his stream show this. I realize that Stats is really good and it might not be because collossi are to strong but I just hate watching those games where one player turtles with collossi and the other player desperately tries to make something happen before the deathball becomes to strong.
adepts on the other hand are strong but lose their value over time so if you can hold on you should be fine,
+ Show Spoiler +another reason why I want collossi to be nerfed might be that I'm absolutely terrible against collossus play and my tvp winrate dropped by 20% when collossi became the meta again
|
On February 26 2017 00:56 todespolka wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2017 23:47 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote:On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Again: can anybody tell me why reapers have grenades to begin with? IIRC blizzard wanted to make the reaper have impact in the midgame, well all the grenades did was creating the cheese/allin possibility (and most of the time you can transition perfectly fine)
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second ravagers at terran's natural before even 2 marines showed up after reaper opener, think about that for a sec... That is not possible.
watch innovation vs elazer nation wars then
|
On February 26 2017 01:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 00:13 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 25 2017 23:51 Charoisaur wrote:On February 25 2017 21:37 egrimm wrote:
Nerf to +shield on WMs warmly welcomed from design standpoint.
If balance in PvT is the concern then why not also nerf adepts? Win - Win situation. I'd prefer a collossus nerf. adepts aren't that much of a problem anymore. I don't see in which world colossi are a problem. Disruptors transition after 3 colossi are strong but nothing worrisome if you ask me. On the other hand, mass adepts floods are already kinda problematic and will undoubtedly be broken if the mine nerf goes through. So all in all, some adept nerf (more severe than the vision change that didn't really do much ; not cancellable shade or straight nerf to the unit) would be a wiser move in complement to the WM nerf imo. just from what I see in pro games terran rarely wins if protoss gets a big army with 3-4 collossus without having taken any damage. Especially Stats' games in the GSL and on his stream show this. I realize that Stats is really good and it might not be because collossi are to strong but I just hate watching those games where one player turtles with collossi and the other player desperately tries to make something happen before the deathball becomes to strong. adepts on the other hand are strong but lose their value over time so if you can hold on you should be fine, + Show Spoiler +another reason why I want collossi to be nerfed might be that I'm absolutely terrible against collossus play and my tvp winrate dropped by 20% when collossi became the meta again
Are we talking about nerfing Colossus because of design or balance reasons? If design then I agree - I'd not only nerf it but probably just straight remove it from the game. However I think we are talking about compensating the nerf for WMs and in this case I believe that nerfing Colossus to balance WM is wrong approach. Why? Because WM nerf will indirectly buff adept compositions mostly apedt+phoenix and Colossus nerf will obviously nerf robot based compositions. So as a result the ratio between robot based armies and adept based will change heavily. In other words all Protosses will go for adept/phoenix because it will become much better because of both WM and Colossus nerfs which will hurt diversity of compositions imho.
|
What's the logic behind the speedruptors?
|
On February 26 2017 03:44 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:14 Charoisaur wrote:On February 26 2017 00:13 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 25 2017 23:51 Charoisaur wrote:On February 25 2017 21:37 egrimm wrote:
Nerf to +shield on WMs warmly welcomed from design standpoint.
If balance in PvT is the concern then why not also nerf adepts? Win - Win situation. I'd prefer a collossus nerf. adepts aren't that much of a problem anymore. I don't see in which world colossi are a problem. Disruptors transition after 3 colossi are strong but nothing worrisome if you ask me. On the other hand, mass adepts floods are already kinda problematic and will undoubtedly be broken if the mine nerf goes through. So all in all, some adept nerf (more severe than the vision change that didn't really do much ; not cancellable shade or straight nerf to the unit) would be a wiser move in complement to the WM nerf imo. just from what I see in pro games terran rarely wins if protoss gets a big army with 3-4 collossus without having taken any damage. Especially Stats' games in the GSL and on his stream show this. I realize that Stats is really good and it might not be because collossi are to strong but I just hate watching those games where one player turtles with collossi and the other player desperately tries to make something happen before the deathball becomes to strong. adepts on the other hand are strong but lose their value over time so if you can hold on you should be fine, + Show Spoiler +another reason why I want collossi to be nerfed might be that I'm absolutely terrible against collossus play and my tvp winrate dropped by 20% when collossi became the meta again Are we talking about nerfing Colossus because of design or balance reasons? If design then I agree - I'd not only nerf it but probably just straight remove it from the game. However I think we are talking about compensating the nerf for WMs and in this case I believe that nerfing Colossus to balance WM is wrong approach. Why? Because WM nerf will indirectly buff adept compositions mostly apedt+phoenix and Colossus nerf will obviously nerf robot based compositions. So as a result the ratio between robot based armies and adept based will change heavily. In other words all Protosses will go for adept/phoenix because it will become much better because of both WM and Colossus nerfs which will hurt diversity of compositions imho.
Very sensible. 100% agree.
|
On February 26 2017 03:52 Dumbledore wrote:
What's the logic behind the speedruptors?
Zergs have problems with carriers in the late game ZvP, but instead of nerfing carriers Blizzard finds it more entertaining to make Corruptors more viable and reward players who micro better with them.
It may effect ZvT though, as ling bane corruptor and other mid game compositions which involves the corruptor may turn more viable.
|
Balance seems to be perfectly fine right now, tbh. GSL semifinals have 2 Protoss, 1 Zerg, 1 Terran. Aligulac shows every single match within +/- 2% of 50%.
I really don't know why Blizzard feels the need to make adjustments to anything besides the Carrier right now.
Hope they won't go into effect until after Katowice at least.
|
On February 26 2017 05:14 pvsnp wrote:
Balance seems to be perfectly fine right now, tbh. GSL semifinals have 2 Protoss, 1 Zerg, 1 Terran. Aligulac shows every single match within +/- 2% of 50%.
I really don't know why Blizzard feels the need to make adjustments to anything besides the Carrier right now.
Hope they won't go into effect until after Katowice at least.
Aligulac is unreliable. Several posters have already said in other feedback update threads that it shouldn´t be used and people still quote it. And balance is far from "perfectly fine" . Maybe decent or maybe okay would be fitting but not "perfectly fine" .
|
Aligulac is unreliable. Several posters have already said in other feedback update threads that it shouldn´t be used and people still quote it. And balance is far from "perfectly fine" . Maybe decent or maybe okay would be fitting but not "perfectly fine" .
Of course Aligulac is unreliable. I was one of those posters saying how unreliable it is.
But do you have anything better?
Aligulac + Progames combined can give us a decent approximation of how the balance is doing, and right now it's okay-ish. But when has balance ever been better than so-so? Okay-ish balance qualifies as perfectly fine because that's about as good as it will ever get.
|
On February 26 2017 07:13 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +Aligulac is unreliable. Several posters have already said in other feedback update threads that it shouldn´t be used and people still quote it. And balance is far from "perfectly fine" . Maybe decent or maybe okay would be fitting but not "perfectly fine" .
Of course Aligulac is unreliable. I was one of those posters saying how unreliable it is. But do you have anything better? Aligulac + Progames combined can give us a decent approximation of how the balance is doing, and right now it's okay-ish. But when has balance ever been better than so-so? Okay-ish balance qualifies as perfectly fine because that's about as good as it will ever get.
yeah the current state of balance is ok. I don't think there has ever been a really good era balance-wise, when nobody was rightfully complaining about some strong issue. I even think that when such periods of time happened, it was because something genuinely problematic had not been figured out (eg blink sentries in HotS PvZ). But if someone remembers something that comes close to a balance golden age, I'll be glad to hear your ideas.
|
yeah the current state of balance is ok. I don't think there has ever been a really good era balance-wise, when nobody was rightfully complaining about some strong issue. I even think that when such periods of time happened, it was because something genuinely problematic had not been figured out (eg blink sentries in HotS PvZ). But if someone remembers something that comes close to a balance golden age, I'll be glad to hear your ideas.
Yeah my thoughts exactly. As far as I can remember, there has never been any time in Starcraft history where nobody was complaining. Right now is pretty much as close as we will ever be.
Which is why I'm not too happy that Blizzard wants to change things. It can only get worse, and in a few months I don't doubt some other gamebreaking issue will come up because the balance team (and all the whiners) couldn't settle for good enough.
|
So the current state of the game balance wise is ok. Oh ok. Big words without saying much at all. As always!
How about you explain what balance is to you first. Then you give context how each mu builds up so one could actually determine if that is balance or not for themself.
Thats my answer to this question
Of course Aligulac is unreliable. I was one of those posters saying how unreliable it is.
But do you have anything better?
This is to anyone that says "balance is ok" without giving context. And that i never hear from anyone, its just general talk about some statistics.
This is how you talk balance. Not by numbers or statistics but context, information and analysing
|
Not quite sure what you're getting at....
Are you saying that statistics are worthless? Regardless of whether people like them or not, the numbers are very clear. Of course their context, external factors like skill level, online/offline, etc, etc must be taken into account, but they are still an objective measurement that everyone must acknowledge as having meaning.
If you are rejecting the statistics, then please tell me how you can replace them with an equivalent universal objective foundation. Context is information. Statistics is information. Analysis is subjective.
Without an objective foundation, you have nowhere to stand. Statistics provides us that foundation from which we can then expand upon with analysis, with playstyle, with opinion, so on and so forth. But without a foundation it all comes crashing down.
|
Why does it have to be universal objective foundation? That feels so wrong to me. The majority dont know how to analyse a game well enough, therefore it would be a minority objective foundation instead.
You give context and analyse, and you show how you analyse. And you go from there.
Iam not saying statistics are worthless but they are not #1 when it comes to how well the balance is.
|
Why does it have to be universal objective foundation? That feels so wrong to me. The majority dont know how to analyse a game well enough, therefore it would be a minority objective foundation instead.
You give context and analyse, and you show how you analyse. And you go from there.
Iam not saying statistics are worthless but they are not #1 when it comes to how well the balance is.
Because everyone plays the same game. There has to be a reason everyone understands, even if they don't agree with it or don't like it, or else you are arbitrarily placing higher value on some (subjective) opinions over others. That's the whole point of objective; so that nobody can deny its validity when you place higher value on some (more objective) opinions over others. A 50% winrate is objective. "Terran feels too strong" is not.
Analysis is subjective, and if we rely solely on subjective analysis for balancing, then the game winds up balanced around whomever can best persuade others that their analysis is most legitimate. All analysis has to be evaluated against an objective standard, and in this case the standard is how well an analysis can identify solutions that bring statistics to equilibrium.
I am not saying statistics are the be all and end all of balance, but they are certainly an important part. Not the only part, but an important one.
|
If balance = 50% winrates then sure balance is ok. But it's a fact zerg hasnt been able to win vs skytoss since hots was released. Its a fact zerg had totally shit t3 anti air. Its a fact that 3.8 patch had major overhauls for each race and the zerg one got completly reversed and the patch actually made zerg a lot worse compared to before 3.8, when Surprise Surprise, the numbers also showed balance but zerg was infact way stronger than now
these changes make total sense except to people who dont play zerg
|
|
|
Mh i misunderstood that sentence. Thats why i talked about analysing.
Either way, statistics doesnt evne have to be important. I want to say that statistics are useless without the context.
Purely looking at winrates are worthless, yeah i really think so.
It doesnt say how one race wins. If zerg needs to all-in every match or alot of matches to win, then already something is wrong and just because its 50/50 in statistic balance doesnt mean that the balance of the game is in fact shit.
So to really talk about balance, context, information and analysing is key. But no one do it. Is it really to hard? I have never seen anyone actually do it, ever.
You start the game by building economy. This is objective, isnt it. You build workers, make supply to make even more workers, maybe an expansion.
Yeah its hard to do this, its really hard but i feel its necessary to do so to make the balance of the game as good as possible.
You need knowledge, and you need to know how to think about it. You probably need some programs as well to help your memory.
The hardest part i think is to determine what a human is capable of, and what human should you look at? The single person in the world that can micro marines like no one else? Or should you look at one step below instead for it?
Maybe that is infact impossible to know. I think in a case like this you dont look at current humans to determine, you look at the human brain instead and try to come to a conclusion what is "human possible" instead of "inhuman possible" when infact talking about humans.
Because some humans can infact be inhuman. Its rare but it happens. It roughly means that the persons brain has a connection to do this thing that it is close to one of a kind. You cant balance a game around that can you.
I want to believe it would be possible to get atleast a 90% balance of a game, not 100%. Not a bad number.
So again, just showing me the statistic balance means jack shit to me. No, it means something i can give that, it can give hint and its some fast information, yeah, alright its not totally worthless without context but without context its just that, some hints.
|
Foxxan, you are talking about balance in play styles, aren't you? Not balance in win rate.
I think you are in a minority to not mean balance in win rate when talking about balance. Many people use the words 'design' or 'style' when talking about stuff that aren't win rates. You gave an example of a need to all-in a lot. That is about viable strategies. It seems to me that you would like more play styles to be viable for the different races (which is a thing I think the design team is trying to accomplish).
Edit: miscredited a bit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
