|
On April 14 2017 05:56 seopthi wrote:
Surprised they did not give a shoutout to David Kim with a short note on how things will change in regards to further development and tweaks.
I think that the problem with Adept is not one that can be fixed by tweaking numbers; it is wrongly designed unit at its core and should be replaced as such and compensated by another unit or buffing Zealot, to be core Protoss unit again.
However, it is worth noting that TY said that he would want to significantly increase the shade's cooldown (I think he even said twice), but would reintroduce its vision.
And you will never hear TY says anything about merging his beloved liberators tanks mines cyclone that he loves to abuse so much!
|
On April 14 2017 20:13 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 05:56 seopthi wrote:
Surprised they did not give a shoutout to David Kim with a short note on how things will change in regards to further development and tweaks.
I think that the problem with Adept is not one that can be fixed by tweaking numbers; it is wrongly designed unit at its core and should be replaced as such and compensated by another unit or buffing Zealot, to be core Protoss unit again.
However, it is worth noting that TY said that he would want to significantly increase the shade's cooldown (I think he even said twice), but would reintroduce its vision. And you will never hear TY says anything about merging his beloved liberators tanks mines cyclone that he loves to abuse so much!
TY said more than once last year that he figured the liberator was too strong and would get nerfed eventually.
Also lol cyclones
|
On April 14 2017 18:21 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 18:06 Aiobhill wrote:On April 14 2017 13:15 pvsnp wrote:45% winrate is the norm. Everyone is used to it. When it gets to 50/50 everyone feels off. Terrans feel like they never win and Protoss players feel like the matchup is too easy.
I'm being 100% serious here, there is a real psychological phenomenon behind this. If what you say is true, then everyone must feel extremely strange right now. Because PvT is at 57%. Even including the quoted 14 day period, Terran is still the leading race with 6% and Protoss still lagging at 3%. This means probably another 57% month would be needed to fucking restore balance in the first place. The leading/lagging race takes the mean Aligulac rating of the top 5 players of each race, so unless the 57% winrate causes the Terrans to have a massive (and I mean gigantic) rating drop, it likely won't. The top 5 Terrans all dropped in rating during the last period (INnoVation by over 80 points) and herO and Neeb had very big upswings, and all it amounted to was a 3% change on leading/lagging. The leading/lagging statistic is realistically not very helpful either, since ratings are skewed for one or another reason.
Still, we have ~ four indicators as to overall balance: win rates, tournament wins, ladder/race/league distribution and the mentioned leading/lagging race in Aligulac. When tvp was 60:40, all four indicated t>p, and they did so for a long time. Now the situation is completely different.
|
People need to stop citing Aligulac! They focus on a few individual players and even then only look at an elect number of games, they seem fit. This methodology is not suited to derive meaningful information on the game as a whole. Not the least bit. The source data is too biased. When the PvT win rate changes from 40% to 57% it could just mean e.g. they chose to only look at Showtime for a month.
|
Allways protoss takes hard nerfs...im soo happy i left this game, cos it allways drove me crazy how they nerf toss just cos of terran crybabys. Anyways daed gaem.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 14 2017 20:31 QuinnTheEskimo wrote:
People need to stop citing Aligulac! They focus on a few individual players and even then only look at an elect number of games, they seem fit. This methodology is not suited to derive meaningful information on the game as a whole. Not the least bit. The source data is too biased. When the PvT win rate changes from 40% to 57% it could just mean e.g. they chose to only look at Showtime for a month.
The winrates are based on every game recorded on Aligulac (ranging from top pros to to amateurs), they are not limited to individual players like you suggest.
On April 14 2017 20:23 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 18:21 Elentos wrote:On April 14 2017 18:06 Aiobhill wrote:On April 14 2017 13:15 pvsnp wrote:45% winrate is the norm. Everyone is used to it. When it gets to 50/50 everyone feels off. Terrans feel like they never win and Protoss players feel like the matchup is too easy.
I'm being 100% serious here, there is a real psychological phenomenon behind this. If what you say is true, then everyone must feel extremely strange right now. Because PvT is at 57%. Even including the quoted 14 day period, Terran is still the leading race with 6% and Protoss still lagging at 3%. This means probably another 57% month would be needed to fucking restore balance in the first place. The leading/lagging race takes the mean Aligulac rating of the top 5 players of each race, so unless the 57% winrate causes the Terrans to have a massive (and I mean gigantic) rating drop, it likely won't. The top 5 Terrans all dropped in rating during the last period (INnoVation by over 80 points) and herO and Neeb had very big upswings, and all it amounted to was a 3% change on leading/lagging. The leading/lagging statistic is realistically not very helpful either, since ratings are skewed for one or another reason. Still, we have ~ four indicators as to overall balance: win rates, tournament wins, ladder/race/league distribution and the mentioned leading/lagging race in Aligulac. When tvp was 60:40, all four indicated t>p, and they did so for a long time. Now the situation is completely different.
I wonder how much the race distribution on ladder actually tells us. Percentage wise there are more Protoss players now than a year ago. Was Protoss off worse back then? I wouldn't say so.
|
On April 14 2017 20:35 Elentos wrote:
I wonder how much the race distribution on ladder actually tells us. Percentage wise there are more Protoss players now than a year ago. Was Protoss off worse back then? I wouldn't say so.
Race distribution is pretty much the only thing that tells anything about the ladder and whole (ladder) playerbase. Back in early years of SC2 Blizzard released winrates for ladder, which is interesting since system basically forces every player to 50% winrate, so If one advances from bronze to GM, only thing that changes during this in the big picture is his/her league. Therefore, it is league distribution that tells the tale of what really happens in ladder.
|
The winrates are based on every game recorded on Aligulac (ranging from top pros to to amateurs), they are not limited to individual players like you sugges
Read their FAQ at
http://aligulac.com/about/faq/
especially the section titled
How do you decide which games to add?
The games recorded at Aligulac are the problem. The method of how games end up being recorded on Aligulac is the problem. That is why their statistics are not suited to represent the game or its races in general.
And the section right after tells you they handle players individually. I am not suggesting.
|
I hope very much that that doesn't mean that we have to watch Protoss rely on Colossus again. That would be terrible.
|
Adept is a no risk, easy win unit. Reduce the HP to make it more risky to shade onto an army. Make cancelling shade damage shields.
|
On April 14 2017 17:27 R4iNy wrote:
Hello everybody
As a high master/low GM Terran player I think that increasing cooldown of a shade is too little of a change, and reducing the HP's by 10 might be too drastic. So I would like to propose a middle way solution to the problem. I would increase the cooldown of a shade to 14 seconds like already proposed by the balance team and in addition to that I would make adepts a bit more vulnerable to attacks for a short period of time right after the shade is finished (like while warping in units, they take a bit more damage in the process) This would force protoss players to really think the action through, if it is really worth it to shade the adepts on top of the army and it would add a nice balanced disadvantage to the move as the shade itself ( on top of the army ) counters units that need to kited (Like bio, roaches, hydras, queens etc.) But on the otherside there would be no downside to the shade (such as reducing HP would be) if the defending players doesnt react in time for example while defending his mineral line. To compensate such a change I would boost the vision of a shade a little bit, so Protoss player and get enough information to make a final decision.
I think this change could be balanced very easily, because the team can always change the duration of such debuff and can also tweak the percentage of damage taken bonus.
A quite reasonable suggestion. The balance team should consider something like this.
|
Also, sad to see such groundless bias from an admin, guess we are all human though.
|
On April 14 2017 22:14 temporary1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 20:35 Elentos wrote:
I wonder how much the race distribution on ladder actually tells us. Percentage wise there are more Protoss players now than a year ago. Was Protoss off worse back then? I wouldn't say so. Race distribution is pretty much the only thing that tells anything about the ladder and whole playerbase. Back in early years of SC2 Blizzard released winrates for ladder, which is interesting since system basically forces every player to 50% winrate, so If one advances from bronze to GM, only thing that changes during this in the big picture is his/her league. Therefore, it is league distribution that tells the tale of what really happens in ladder.
Race distribution doesn't tell anything about balance. Players most likely choose whatever they find more fun. People rarely choose races based on strenght, even choosing the underdog race is more common behaviour than choosing the op one.
This race distribution only shows that in lotv, playing protoss is less fun than playing terran & zerg. This is what should be adressed in the first place.
P.s: It may sound funny but i think the biggest reason for that is the new shitty chronoboost.
|
On April 14 2017 23:15 Aegwynn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 22:14 temporary1 wrote:On April 14 2017 20:35 Elentos wrote:
I wonder how much the race distribution on ladder actually tells us. Percentage wise there are more Protoss players now than a year ago. Was Protoss off worse back then? I wouldn't say so. Race distribution is pretty much the only thing that tells anything about the ladder and whole playerbase. Back in early years of SC2 Blizzard released winrates for ladder, which is interesting since system basically forces every player to 50% winrate, so If one advances from bronze to GM, only thing that changes during this in the big picture is his/her league. Therefore, it is league distribution that tells the tale of what really happens in ladder. Race distribution doesn't tell anything about balance. Players most likely choose whatever they find more fun. People rarely choose races based on strenght, even choosing the underdog race is more common behaviour than choosing the op one. This race distribution only shows that in lotv, playing protoss is less fun than playing terran & zerg. This is what should be adressed in the first place. P.s: It may sound funny but i think the biggest reason for that is the new shitty chronoboost.
Race distribution may not tell much about balance, since it can be affected by personal preference, and I did put that there by mistake. However, there is no concluse evindence that protoss is less played because it is less fun; the reason that protoss is less played because it is more difficult to play is just as, if not more, plausible as a reason.
What can and probably should be derived from the chart, however, is league distribution, which means how players of a race are distributed among leagues. As you can see, Protoss has almost third of the bronze playerbase, and this percentage is significantly smaller in higher leagues. Simply put, protoss players tend to end up in lower leagues and zerg players end up in higher leagues, while terran is the middle ground. If we use Occam's razor and assume the most obvious answer is the correct one, this tells us that protoss is dirstributed that way because it is either more difficult to play and/or underpowered compared to terran and especially zerg.
|
reads like david kims publications, thanks for the subtly.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On April 14 2017 23:07 DeadByDawn wrote:
Also, sad to see such groundless bias from an admin, guess we are all human though.
I've seen the community react to the state of balance for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about. We specifically had to change posting rules for tournament threads when Terran was doing poorly because it was unbearable and drove parts of our community and some of our own staff away. It was never nearly as bad with the other two races. But sure, "groundless bias".
|
I'd love to see 1500 minerals implemented again but with 10 worker start like we have now but idk how the community feels about this one.
Adept health nerf seems enough imo and i would increase the shade vision a bit to improve their scouting.
Pls change swarmhosts, the unit kills tvz mech play! Groung moving only locusts would be a good step maybe...
|
On April 14 2017 23:53 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 23:07 DeadByDawn wrote:
Also, sad to see such groundless bias from an admin, guess we are all human though. I've seen the community react to the state of balance for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about. We specifically had to change posting rules for tournament threads when Terran was doing poorly because it was unbearable and drove parts of our community and some of our own staff away. It was never nearly as bad with the other two races. But sure, "groundless bias".
Weird, I thought that for most of WoL the consensus was Zergs were the most prolific whiners. Even during BL/infestor I heard a lot of complaints about late-game air terran, carriers, etc. Maybe when idra left that changed?
|
On April 14 2017 17:27 R4iNy wrote:
Hello everybody
As a high master/low GM Terran player I think that increasing cooldown of a shade is too little of a change, and reducing the HP's by 10 might be too drastic. So I would like to propose a middle way solution to the problem. I would increase the cooldown of a shade to 14 seconds like already proposed by the balance team and in addition to that I would make adepts a bit more vulnerable to attacks for a short period of time right after the shade is finished (like while warping in units, they take a bit more damage in the process) This would force protoss players to really think the action through, if it is really worth it to shade the adepts on top of the army and it would add a nice balanced disadvantage to the move as the shade itself ( on top of the army ) counters units that need to kited (Like bio, roaches, hydras, queens etc.) But on the otherside there would be no downside to the shade (such as reducing HP would be) if the defending players doesnt react in time for example while defending his mineral line. To compensate such a change I would boost the vision of a shade a little bit, so Protoss player and get enough information to make a final decision.
I think this change could be balanced very easily, because the team can always change the duration of such debuff and can also tweak the percentage of damage taken bonus.
I like that idea a lot.
That way toss has to consider where and when to shade and the defender doesn't need to have doulbe the army to be able to defend both fronts.
|
On April 14 2017 23:36 temporary1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 23:15 Aegwynn wrote:On April 14 2017 22:14 temporary1 wrote:On April 14 2017 20:35 Elentos wrote:
I wonder how much the race distribution on ladder actually tells us. Percentage wise there are more Protoss players now than a year ago. Was Protoss off worse back then? I wouldn't say so. Race distribution is pretty much the only thing that tells anything about the ladder and whole playerbase. Back in early years of SC2 Blizzard released winrates for ladder, which is interesting since system basically forces every player to 50% winrate, so If one advances from bronze to GM, only thing that changes during this in the big picture is his/her league. Therefore, it is league distribution that tells the tale of what really happens in ladder. Race distribution doesn't tell anything about balance. Players most likely choose whatever they find more fun. People rarely choose races based on strength, even choosing the underdog race is more common behaviour than choosing the op one. This race distribution only shows that in lotv, playing protoss is less fun than playing terran & zerg. This is what should be adressed in the first place. P.s: It may sound funny but i think the biggest reason for that is the new shitty chronoboost. Race distribution may not tell much about balance, since it can be affected by personal preference, and I did put that there by mistake. However, there is no concluse evidence that protoss is less played because it is less fun; the reason that protoss is less played because it is more difficult to play is just as, if not more, plausible as a reason. What can and probably should be derived from the chart, however, is league distribution, which means how players of a race are distributed among leagues. As you can see, Protoss has almost third of the bronze playerbase, and this percentage is significantly smaller in higher leagues. Simply put, protoss players tend to end up in lower leagues and zerg players end up in higher leagues, while terran is the middle ground. If we use Occam's razor and assume the most obvious answer is the correct one, this tells us that protoss is dirstributed that way because it is either more difficult to play and/or underpowered compared to terran and especially zerg.
"Race distribution is pretty much the only thing that tells us anything about ladder and the whole playerbase."
No, in a game where the campaign has 30 Terran missions for the first expansion, you're going to end up with a lot of Terran players. My friend played Protoss in SC1. He has played exclusively Terran in SC2, and that's entirely because he familiarized himself with the race through the campaign. In addition, Terran has changed the least from SC1, so it's the easiest to use if you're an SC2 player from way back.
It seems to me that there is a definite style to each race. Zerg is still the most reactive because they generally have the most map control. Protoss is still very tech-based and defensive, trying to build to a massive endgame army. Terran is passive-aggressive, always picking fights but rarely taking a full-on engagement.
Zerg engage by surrounding, Terran by kiting, Protoss by simple attacks. I don't think it's a simple question of "fun", as fun means different things to different people. Protoss is not "more difficult", it is defensive and tech-oriented until you get to 3 bases.
Occam's razor is a lazy man's tool to avoid having to examine multiple causation.
Here's my central assertion: Zerg is the best designed race as a whole in SC2. The units are cohesive and work well together through the early, mid, and late game, with options for aggression, macro, and tech builds throughout. The other two races are less-well designed. I think the design team happened into this situation, and that the two units they've added that seem almost impossible to adjust and handle from a design standpoint are the Adept and Liberator.
Even these units are too powerful for different reasons. The adept has everything: tankiness, maneuverability, and dps being the 3 most important factors. The liberator has two unbelievably powerful things: massive single-unit damage and selective defensive positioning. I don't know how they're going to make these 2 units viable because their design needs to be rethought from the ground up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
