EPTCommunity Feedback Update- April 13 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
The main reason the mass adept non-sense is back in full force is because widow mines were the main counter to adepts. Adding mines into your army made it a lot harder for someone to spam pure adepts. But with aoe nerfed...we have what we have now. Though, it's kinda nice in a way that mines were nerfed so finally that spotlight could be on how ridiculous adepts have been the entire time. | ||
|
Ransomstarcraft
75 Posts
In any case, the adept should have some definite strengths and weaknesses. The zealot is tanky but slow. The stalker is maneuverable but with low dps. The adept would fit very well being maneuverable with high dps. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 15 2017 21:45 reneg wrote: What if they actually removed the adept as a separate unit? Hear me out: If you maintain zealots as they are, but provide adepts as upgraded zealots. So resonating glaves, instead of just increasing attack speed actually transforms zealots into adepts. Each zealot could then merge his consciousness with the psionic matrix for a short period of time, ( day 15 sec and for a cost of 50/50) and emerge as a stronger fighting unit, similar to lurkers. That way, you maintain zealots early game, you create a need for them to be built, you allow adepts to come into the game a little bit later (and can tweak them a little more easily in terms of availability and cost: make the research take longer/shorter, make the individual warp transformation take longer/shorter or be more expensive) without destroying the flexibility that adepts provide. I'd argue at this point, those charges are so drastic that you leave the rest of them alone /buff something else so Ps don't just get rolled over by big pushes and just get sieged to death. What do people think about this? I think the only problem with this is that it nerfs them to hard in the early/midgame where Protoss needs them the most. Lategame with lots of liberators and high tech Terran they lose a lot of effectiveness because of low dps vs non-light units. However, Protoss needs a unit that can go against bio in small numbers otherwise we end up in a situation like in HotS or WoL where Protoss needs to turtle to get the high tech units to engage effectively against Terran. I'm not saying they don't need toning down just that they need to retain early/midgame strength. | ||
|
fx9
117 Posts
so adepts are to have less health than marines while costing 3x as much. Brilliant! While at it, give them ability to mine too, because they are basically drones/probes. | ||
|
tabibitoto
5 Posts
Increasing the cost of Glaives to 150/150 or 200/200 would ensure that P has fewer Adepts early on, while increasing upgrade duration to 121 sec would give T/Z an extra production cycle and put more pressure on P to transition away from Adepts since they do loose equity as the game goes on. Eliminating the Adept's +1 base armor is also an option to consider, as it would differentiate it from the more heavily armored but less mobile Zealot and would make Marines/Zerglings more effective in dealing with early/midgame harass. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17386 Posts
 | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
i think Blizzard has a Siege Tank skin they've been hiding since they introduced skins. they'll introduce it with the WarChest and charge like $30 for it. While a tank skin would be super cool, are you sure you're in the right thread? | ||
|
Weltall
Italy83 Posts
Protoss struggle a lot versus zerg because they need to control the tempo of the game, slowing and harassing zerg from the start (mainly with adepts) while teching and expanding. This is also why lots of fresh players and not-so-fresh players complain about this matchup (just admit that pvz requires lots of effort from protoss in early game). So, adept is annoyng because of his harass potential? What about decrease harass potential but letting her become a more solid unit without so much control required? I really like the beta version of adept because it gave and early tool to deal with mass low tier units strategy that zerg and terran have thanks to eco boost. My suggestion would be to remove totally shade, instead give a toggle skill wich switch adept damage from single target one to bouncing one. Also, reduce their hp/shield. In single attack mode, adept will do 15+7 vs light (keeping total damage vs light the same but increase their efficiency versus non-light), while in boucing mode (2 jumps), it will do 2+15 vs light ( requires 3 shot for lings up from 2). This change will greatly improve the efficiency of adept versus mass ling strategies (most against cheese/drop plays where protoss struggle most), will grant a more performant unit versus armored (so it's not a waste versus tank/roach all ins), will decrease harass potential in early stage (no shade), will decrease the tanking while configuring the adept as a dps glass unit (so zealot would come into play as tanking role) I would also like to increase a bit the unit movement speed, since loosing shade adept will loose lot of mobility. | ||
|
GreenMash
Norway1746 Posts
| ||
|
jackacea
66 Posts
I dont think their hp or cooldown are the problem but having to be at multiple places at once without Toss having to commit to an attack is what lets the game snowball out of control. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On April 16 2017 22:00 GreenMash wrote: Please dont hesitate to nerf adepts. PvT right now is not only unbalanced but also very dull. A change is needed imo Why would you nerf the side that isn't doing as well without some compensatory buff? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ | ||
|
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
I don't think trying to fiddle with the units individual stats is the problem in this game. This 1500 mineral change though seemed to make all the difference in the world though. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
Why would you nerf the side that isn't doing as well without some compensatory buff? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ Your stats are outdated. Notice how there's no data points for April? Most recent period (first two weeks of April) has PvT at over 57%. http://aligulac.com/periods/186/ No compensatory buff is needed. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 17 2017 04:37 pvsnp wrote: Your stats are outdated. Notice how there's no data points for April? Most recent period (first two weeks of April) has PvT at over 57%. http://aligulac.com/periods/186/ No compensatory buff is needed. I can also say that your stats are outdated http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/ with the current period having PvT at 53% and PvZ at 43%. And you can point to the fact that the newest stats are only 4 days old, and I will point to the fact that the period immediately before 186 had PvT at 49%. The point is, we'd have to see a consistent stretch of time where Protoss is higher than 50% to judge whether statswise Protoss is too strong. Besides, if we take the past couple of periods, Protoss is consistently below average in PvZ. Most changes to the adept will affect both matchups, and so if you nerf adepts in the PvT matchup, you either have to buff them for the PvZ matchup or make sure that the nerf doesn't adversely affect the PvZ matchup. Or, one could acknowledge the lack of alternative options for Protoss in PvT and nerf adepts while buffing Protoss in another way so that they have more options in PvT. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17386 Posts
On April 16 2017 23:11 BronzeKnee wrote: Why would you nerf the side that isn't doing as well without some compensatory buff? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ good point. i think they should nerf adepts and buff Zealots to the extent that we see roughly equal usage of both units while at the same time making PvT as close to 50/50 as possible. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
I can also say that your stats are outdated http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/ with the current period having PvT at 53% and PvZ at 43%. And you can point to the fact that the newest stats are only 4 days old, and I will point to the fact that the period immediately before 186 had PvT at 49%. The point is, we'd have to see a consistent stretch of time where Protoss is higher than 50% to judge whether statswise Protoss is too strong. Besides, if we take the past couple of periods, Protoss is consistently below average in PvZ. Most changes to the adept will affect both matchups, and so if you nerf adepts in the PvT matchup, you either have to buff them for the PvZ matchup or make sure that the nerf doesn't adversely affect the PvZ matchup. Or, one could acknowledge the lack of alternative options for Protoss in PvT and nerf adepts while buffing Protoss in another way so that they have more options in PvT. You could indeed say that my stats are outdated, if you wished to be disingenuous. As you said, 4 days is not comparable to 2 weeks. It's true that Period 185 had a PvT winrate at 49%. It's also true that Protoss has been on the rise ever since. If consistency is your concern, I suggest you look at more than just winrates. For instance, the winners of big tournaments. Stats and herO are our most recent champions, and the tournaments they won had PvT winrates of 55.6% and 52.4%. Not satisfied? Try GSL Ro32 representation. One too many Protoss players. Still not satisfied? Look at the state of Terran three months ago, when it was quite obvious that the balance was tilted in their favor. Back then: Aligulac PvT: 42% (+8 Terran) Terrans in the Ro32: 12 Recent Champions: INnoVation (IEM) and TY (WESG) Compare that snapshot to one of the current state: Aligulac PvT: 57% (+7 Protoss) Protoss in the Ro32: 12 Recent Champions: Stats (GSL) and herO (Super) By this point all of us remember the painful month of imbalance until Liberators were nerfed, and another month until mines too were nerfed. It was not a pleasant two months, to say the least. I'd rather avoid going through another two just like them and I'm sure every fair-minded player concerned with overall balance instead of their own race would too. PvZ is well-balanced at this point in time. Winrates have fluctuated around 50% +/- 3% for awhile now. Saying that they are "below average" because the winrate is at 48% is disingenuous because of statistical noise and imperfect methodology. If you want to claim that Protoss are "consistently below average" you will have to do the same for Terrans because TvZ winrates is almost exactly equal to PvZ. That said, an Adept nerf will obviously affect Protoss in that matchup, and the PvZ winrate should be watched carefully going forward. A PvZ compensatory buff is appropriate with the Adept nerf, and I'd support one if the balance team announced one. PvT on the other hand is not balanced by any means, which should be obvious from what I've already said. Nerfing Adepts is a clear solution to reduce the monotonic and imbalanced Adept/Phoenix. As far as PvT diversity goes, I favor a Stalker buff. I've made this view clear on multiple occasions, in multiple threads, on multiple forums. But in order for Stalkers (or anything else) to be buffed, Adepts have to be nerfed first. If and only if winrates swing in favor of Terran, then a Stalker buff (or any other Protoss buff) can be applied. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
How bout we get 4 months of Protoss smashing Terran with a 55-60% winrate before we make a change? The hypocrisy is insane. 4 months of beatings is too long, but 2 weeks isn't enough time to determine if there is actually a problem. I am not a fan of the Adept, and I want it nerfed again too. But let's not do it without a compensatory buff unless we have at least a couple of months of data saying we should. Terran players can stomach a couple of months. Protoss players have been getting smashed for the majority of LOTV versus Terran, January 2017 has the worst win rate the matchup has ever seen except for the month HOTS was released, with Protoss winning 41.22%. And just like when the previous Adept nerf tanked the Protoss win rate as it was starting to rise, another one could too. And if we balanced the game based on which race won a tournament, Zerg would have been nerfed after Fruitdealer pulled off the miracle win in the first GSL. And that would have made exactly zero sense. So don't pretend that herO's win over Alive means something, it is false analysis. The Blizzard balance team would be showing an incredible bias against Protoss in PvT to nerf Adepts now without a compensatory buff. Protoss has had a losing win rate versus Terran every month except one since August 2016 until now. More than half a year of Terran dominance. So I don't think we need to be nerfing Protoss based on two weeks. On April 14 2017 03:08 Olli wrote: Nothing about tanks, great stuff. One month of Protoss doing well vs Terran and they're patching, 4 months of tanks wrecking Protoss and still nothing. Classic Blizzard, only listening to the loudest balance whine which always, always, always comes from the Terran part of the community. You have to nerf tanks if you're nerfing adepts, or we'll be right back at 40% winrate for PvT. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 17 2017 07:23 pvsnp wrote: You could indeed say that my stats are outdated, if you wished to be disingenuous. As you said, 4 days is not comparable to 2 weeks. It's true that Period 185 had a PvT winrate at 49%. It's also true that Protoss has been on the rise ever since. If consistency is your concern, I suggest you look at more than just winrates. For instance, the winners of big tournaments. Stats and herO are our most recent champions, and the tournaments they won had PvT winrates of 55.6% and 52.4%. Not satisfied? Try GSL Ro32 representation. One too many Protoss players. Still not satisfied? Look at the state of Terran three months ago, when it was quite obvious that the balance was tilted in their favor. Back then: Aligulac PvT: 42% (+8 Terran) Terrans in the Ro32: 12 Recent Champions: INnoVation (IEM) and TY (WESG) Compare that snapshot to one of the current state: Aligulac PvT: 57% (+7 Protoss) Protoss in the Ro32: 12 Recent Champions: Stats (GSL) and herO (Super) By this point all of us remember the painful month of imbalance until Liberators were nerfed, and another month until mines too were nerfed. It was not a pleasant two months, to say the least. I'd rather avoid going through another two just like them and I'm sure every fair-minded player concerned with overall balance instead of their own race would too. PvZ is well-balanced at this point in time. Winrates have fluctuated around 50% +/- 3% for awhile now. Saying that they are "below average" because the winrate is at 48% is disingenuous because of statistical noise and imperfect methodology. If you want to claim that Protoss are "consistently below average" you will have to do the same for Terrans because TvZ winrates is almost exactly equal to PvZ. That said, an Adept nerf will obviously affect Protoss in that matchup, and the PvZ winrate should be watched carefully going forward. A PvZ compensatory buff is appropriate with the Adept nerf, and I'd support one if the balance team announced one. PvT on the other hand is not balanced by any means, which should be obvious from what I've already said. Nerfing Adepts is a clear solution to reduce the monotonic and imbalanced Adept/Phoenix. As far as PvT diversity goes, I favor a Stalker buff. I've made this view clear on multiple occasions, in multiple threads, on multiple forums. But in order for Stalkers (or anything else) to be buffed, Adepts have to be nerfed first. If and only if winrates swing in favor of Terran, then a Stalker buff (or any other Protoss buff) can be applied. Ok, granted, tournaments do add another way to evaluate balance, but I think with tournaments, you really have to be careful because of players playing people not their own skill level inflating the win rates. Also, conventional wisdom suggests that you can't really take a single tournament's winrate as evidence of balance. So for the two tournaments you cited, the Afreeca GSL Super Tournament and the GSL Season 1, let's look at how many games were played in PvT. Super tournament: 21 games, 11 wins Protoss, 10 wins Terran. PvT: 52.4% GSL Season 1: 54 games, 30 wins Protoss, 24 wins Terran. PvT: 55.6% And let's look at the two tournaments you cited: WESG 2016: 21 games, 8 wins Protoss, 13 wins Terran. PvT: 38.1% IEM Gyeonggi: 14 games, 4 wins Protoss, 10 wins Terran. PvT: 28.6% Let's throw in the mid tournament that happened between the end of February and the beginning of March. Since this tournament is between the patch of Terran dominance and now Protoss dominance, the winrates should be about equal. IEM Katowice: 70 games: 22 wins Protoss, 48 wins Terran. PvT: 31.4% Analysis: For the super tournament, really? 11/10 games is the closest you can get to an even amount of games won or loss. This is so insignificant especially considering the amount of Terran in the super tournament (that is, winning the tournament would involve facing more Terrans and thus inflating that race vs Terran winrate) that it shouldn't even be brought up as winrate balance. Sure, outside of winrates, then it is more likely that herO won in part a little due to adepts, but you can't really bring up winrates as proof in this case. GSL season 1, this has a lot more games, and considering that it was a Protoss who won, you look at his games, and his win to the finals result in three wins for PvT. So if you take out Stats's win, then you only two wins for Protoss over Terran. And regardless, 30 wins to 26 wins is really close with regards to winrates. This means that you reverse three Protoss wins and suddenly you have a balanced number of games won and lost. So even though there a lot of games, the winrates are close, and again, using one tournament as evidence of balance is generally not a good idea. For the two tournaments you cite for Terran imbalance, both of those have so few games that I don't really consider them to be important. However, one thing of note is that even in those few amount of wins, Terran has a much, much greater winrate over Protoss. For WESG, Terran has a 61.9% winrate over Protoss which is a lot more than 52.4% winrate in the super tournament, and IEM has a Terran winrate of 71.4% over Protoss. But again, reverse a few of those wins, and the winrate is even. Also, WESG had Maru and TY against only foreigners, so of course they'll skew the winrates. And since we're so focused on tournament wins, let's look at IEM Katowice. Terran is post-nerf by a month, and so winrates should be more even. But are they? Not at all. Terran has a winrate of 68.6% with more games played than the GSL. But again, the mitigating factor is that it is only one tournament, and a number of wins were against foreigners (though a decent chunk were also against Koreans). So you look at Protoss against Terran in their respective times of imbalance, and Terran had a 61.9% and a 71.4% winrate over Protoss with 1 extra Terran in Code S. Protoss had a 52.4% and 55.6% winrate over Terran with 1 extra player in Code S. It really doesn't look like balance has had that much of an effect on the number of players in Code S. Besides, a tournament with relatively close proximity, IEM Katowice, had a much worse PvT winrate than all except one of these tournaments despite being in a more balanced time. Besides, the time where Terran had 1 more person in Code S was after around 4 weeks of worse balance than right now. So is the Adept too strong right now? Yes But is there enough empirical evidence to suggest that the PvT matchup is that imbalanced? I would say no. Your evidence are the winrates from two weeks, when the prior two weeks were a T advantage, and the winrates of two tournaments, one of which was literally one game away from perfect balance with an even winrate being impossible and the other post nerf being 17-12 wins in Protoss favour but having to take 5 Protoss wins and two Terran losses off if Stats does not win. Also, you said that Protoss has been on the rise since the nerf, but with IEM Katowice, that's clearly not the case. Not only are there more games played than in the GSL, but the winrates are even worse. So if we're to take a snapshot, I would say that Terran now is in a significantly better situation than Protoss was in time of Terran imbalance. Winrates from tournaments and general balance from around that time are significantly worse for Protoss than they are for Terran. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
That's not how you balance a game, you just want your free wins for a few months. | ||
| ||
