Since our last update, we’ve been closely monitoring balance stats on the ladder as well as carefully observing the tournament scene. Today’s update will focus on what we’re hearing from the community, and we’ll also share our thoughts on the current match ups.
In terms of tournaments, a number of our balance patches—like the Raven changes, and the moving of Ventral Sacs to Lair tech—occurred after the qualifier phases or during later rounds of GSL. We feel that some of these changes haven’t seen quite enough high-level play to really judge their ramifications. The upcoming GSL group stages and WCS qualifier results will be valuable for gauging where the current meta is and what sort of further balance changes are necessary. PvZ In terms of this matchup, players seem to still be trying out new strategies. Stargate remains a popular opener but creating and refining new openers often takes some time, since many players don’t want to risk their tournament series on builds they consider untested. Each race trades off in power at different points of the game while still having access to strong aggressive options should players choose to invest in them.
TvZ We feel this matchup is in a decent state. Both sides have access to several openers and mid-game strategies that reward good play, though we have been getting feedback about late game Ravens encouraging overly defensive play. While we don’t see this style of play all that frequently, we think that the Raven’s Anti-Armor Missile provides too much defensive power with its ability to trade energy for high burst damage. Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
PvT While Maru has shown some strong victories recently, a single player’s performance isn’t always indicative of long term balance. The general issue here seems to be that Terran mid-game offensive options aren’t as threatening as they have been in the past. This, in turn, makes the Protoss late game stronger as they can spend more of their resources and time teching up or expanding early on instead of trading units. This isn’t to say that the matchup is unwinnable, but it’s what we’ve gleaned from current trends. Our thinking right now is that we should look into ways of improving Terrans’ offensive options to provide them with greater control over the mid game (such as Viking/Liberator buffs) rather than solely bolster their late-game power (such as Battlecruisers). In line with our reasoning on TvZ mid game detailed above, we currently observe that Terrans feel that their mid game is unreliable. This makes their late game weaker as well, since transitioning to it is difficult. We think that Terran could use more help in TvP rather than TvZ, and since PvZ is developing in a positive direction, we have to be careful with our changes.
Mirror Matchups We are not seeing any immediately worrying trends in terms of how PvP and ZvZ matchups play overall. In TvT late game, Raven stalls have been noted, but we haven’t seen any at the GSL or WCS Premier level as of yet.
As always, thank you for you continued feedback and let us know what you think! We’re curious to know if you believe that the current matchups are playing out differently than what we noted here."
I sympathize with Blizzard's difficulty with finding a PvT change that doesn't screw up the other match-ups, but it really shouldn't have taken them this long to realize that there was a problem and that terrans have been forced into two base all-inning every game for the past two-three months.
And Blizzard's reluctance in nerfing the raven just because the match-up doesn't favour terran is nonsense. Balance arguments shouldn't prop up egregious design problems.
On April 20 2018 03:32 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I sympathize with Blizzard's difficulty with finding a PvT change that doesn't screw up the other match-ups, but it really shouldn't have taken them this long to realize that there was a problem and that terrans have been forced into two base all-inning every game for the past two-three months.
And Blizzard's reluctance in nerfing the raven just because the match-up doesn't favour terran is nonsense. Balance arguments shouldn't prop up egregious design problems.
The difficulty, of course, is always when you see one person do very well while the others from that same race don't perform as well.
If you buff the wrong thing, then suddenly that one player is winning everything, which puts a negative skew on perceived rather than actual balance.
On April 20 2018 03:32 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I sympathize with Blizzard's difficulty with finding a PvT change that doesn't screw up the other match-ups, but it really shouldn't have taken them this long to realize that there was a problem and that terrans have been forced into two base all-inning every game for the past two-three months.
And Blizzard's reluctance in nerfing the raven just because the match-up doesn't favour terran is nonsense. Balance arguments shouldn't prop up egregious design problems.
The difficulty, of course, is always when you see one person do very well while the others from that same race don't perform as well.
If you buff the wrong thing, then suddenly that one player is winning everything, which puts a negative skew on perceived rather than actual balance.
Do you mean Maru? Maru isn't doing that amazing in PvT. He's doing decently in the match-up, and defeating Protoss through a lot of aggression and cheese, but even he can't fight "straight up" against three/four base Protoss.
I feel like Blizzard employees doesn't watch their own game.
They want to buff Terran in TvZ midgame????Leaving their imba level strong lategame??? Is this a joke? Saying that this matchup is Zerg favored is just ridiculous. What Raven changes are they reffering to? They dropped Raven nerf just before releasing the patch...
U want to fix TvP and PvZ in the same time? JUST NERF PROTOSS ALREADY! Stoo pretending that everything is fine.
I feel like Zerg can win games only if they hit some perfect timing with allin. Especially in PvZ. Saying that Zerg has a lots of agressive options in this matchup is another lie. U just took the only agressive option from Zerg which were droperlords. It was the only way to keep Protoss in check in their early game ballshit. The only way that were not an allin with no come back.
I am very, very dissapointed with blindness of balance team.
On April 20 2018 03:57 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like Blizzard employees doesn't watch their own game.
They want to buff Terran in TvZ midgame????Leaving their imba level strong lategame??? Is this a joke? Saying that this matchup is Zerg favored is just ridiculous. What Raven changes are they reffering to? They dropped Raven nerf just before releasing the patch...
U want to fix TvP and PvZ in the same time? JUST NERF PROTOSS ALREADY! Stoo pretending that everything is fine.
I feel like Zerg can win games only if they hit some perfect timing with allin. Especially in PvZ. Saying that Zerg has a lots of agressive options in this matchup is another lie. U just took the only agressive option from Zerg which were droperlords. It was the only way to keep Protoss in check in their early game ballshit. The only way that were not an allin with no come back.
I am very, very dissapointed with blindness of balance team.
Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is you who is blind?
Here are my thoughts on balance as well as a major suggestion for the greater good of the sc2 community.
First off, lets talk balance. SC2 is a game of hardcounters and In a game of hardcounters, defensive/passive/reactive gameplay is the most rewarding. Zerg is the best at playing defensively/passively/reactively. There are only a finite amount of builds that protoss/terran can execute and once zergs learn what they all are/how to scout them/how to combat them, zergs become favored. This is why I believe it's incredibly important to shake up balance with major changes such as new or rotating units for each race AND balance tweaks every 2 months. This type of approach to balance will keep things fresh and prevent the game from ever getting stale/boring. When you balance the game this way, players will always be engaged and this approach will also indirectly help grow the starcraft playerbase/brand longterm. My suggested balance approach is literally what Riot does and is one of the biggest reasons why LoL is a huge success. Hopefully blizzard can set aside their pride and take a page out of Riot's book.
Also, why do marauder's require concussive shell upgrades again? Wasn't that something implemented in WOL beta? IIRC, it was because protosses couldn't deal with it back then. I don't believe that's the case anymore as shield batteries are a thing now. Giving marauders free C.Shell will open up room for player creativity and provide more early game excitement from a spectator perspective.
Lastly and MOST IMPORTANT The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way we can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" "We don't even think you are good enough to even play with us, but give us your money" This is the most anti-community and screwed up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
It might be a terrible idea, but why not come back to the old widow mine to fix TvP? It would make mine drop a lot more viable and would make terran early-mid game stronger by forcing P to have detection. And beeing able to build 10 mine a minute isn't that good for terran since you don't want that many mines anyway and your factory isn't that usefull for anything else in the early game.
TvZ would not be to broken by it I think since Ling-Bane-Hydra usually is the kind of army who clean anything up or get destroyed it dosen't dance arround like Ling-Bane-Muta. And tanks are better against it anyway.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: It might be a terrible idea, but why not come back to the old widow mine to fix TvP? It would make mine drop a lot more viable and would make terran early-mid game stronger by forcing P to have detection. And beeing able to build 10 mine a minute isn't that good for terran since you don't want that many mines anyway and your factory isn't that usefull for anything else in the early game.
TvZ would not be to broken by it I think since Ling-Bane-Hydra usually is the kind of army who clean anything up or get destroyed it dosen't dance arround like Ling-Bane-Muta. And tanks are better against it anyway.
Old PvT openings were basically a game of two game-ending units the oracle and the widow mine forcing players to open a certain way and occasionally keel over and die outright. With the oracle nerfed I don't think bringing back the old widow mine would be wise--it would be awful gameplay-wise even if it ended up balanced.
On April 20 2018 03:57 hiroshOne wrote: I feel like Blizzard employees doesn't watch their own game.
They want to buff Terran in TvZ midgame????Leaving their imba level strong lategame??? Is this a joke? Saying that this matchup is Zerg favored is just ridiculous. What Raven changes are they reffering to? They dropped Raven nerf just before releasing the patch...
U want to fix TvP and PvZ in the same time? JUST NERF PROTOSS ALREADY! Stoo pretending that everything is fine.
I feel like Zerg can win games only if they hit some perfect timing with allin. Especially in PvZ. Saying that Zerg has a lots of agressive options in this matchup is another lie. U just took the only agressive option from Zerg which were droperlords. It was the only way to keep Protoss in check in their early game ballshit. The only way that were not an allin with no come back.
I am very, very dissapointed with blindness of balance team.
They have the ladder matchup numbers and apparently zerg win ZvT most of the time, so it's "overall" a zerg favored matchup, it's not ridiculous at all.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: It might be a terrible idea, but why not come back to the old widow mine to fix TvP? It would make mine drop a lot more viable and would make terran early-mid game stronger by forcing P to have detection. And beeing able to build 10 mine a minute isn't that good for terran since you don't want that many mines anyway and your factory isn't that usefull for anything else in the early game.
TvZ would not be to broken by it I think since Ling-Bane-Hydra usually is the kind of army who clean anything up or get destroyed it dosen't dance arround like Ling-Bane-Muta. And tanks are better against it anyway.
The whole point of the November design patch was to move away from units such as the old widow mine. Personally I feel that to address the current imbalance reversing the Marauder nerf and possibly buffing the Viking might be the options to go for. But please don't buff the liberator, It doesn't encourage entertaining gameplay for either the player or an audience watching.
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "We don't think you are even good enough to even participate, but you really need to keep giving us money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck".
TvZ might be boring to watch and likely terrible to play, but it is the pinnacle of design in a world of asymmetrical balance.
Early game is fairly neutral though possibly Zerg favored due to the wider variety and effectiveness of super aggro strategies.
Mid game is fairly neutral though possibly Zerg favored because of the strength of Hydra Bane. Both players are obligated to play both aggressively and defensively because securing and denying bases is absolutely vital going into the late game. I'd argue that barring huge mistakes in army control, the game is won and lost based almost entirely on this.
The early late game is very Zerg favored because of the strength of Hive tech, Zerg production, creep, and because Terran tech swaps are super slow and difficult.
The very late game is fairly Terran favored because Ghosts and Ravens provide the burst damage necessary to handle the Zerg swarms while not being completely immobile and vulnerable like Siege Tanks and Liberators are. The Terran army is also super expensive, fragile, and difficult to use.
The ungodly late game is fairly Terran favored because Marines are an amazing transition when gas starts to not exist, but that's ONLY if the Terran player managed to split the map. If the Zerg player managed to steal a base, the edge swings his way because 3/3 Adrenal Glands Zerglings are freaking amazing.
The biggest problem is Zerg players haven't figured out how to use their early late game advantage. I blame that on years of the idea of "get to hive = auto win" against Terran, so they haven't figured out how to attack, so they just keep defending or take terrible fights like Elazer's attack in ByuN's siege in game 3 in their GSL group.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: But please don't buff the liberator, It doesn't encourage entertaining gameplay for either the player or an audience watching.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. Why on earth would I want to care about a caster's/event's bottom line when they exclude the entire community minus a handful of players?
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Methinks the best way to keep midgame decent while limiting lategame op is to limit conventional bases to 3 or so, while scattering mineral patches and geysers (either seeded or randomly generated each load) throughout the rest of the map. That way you can increase your bank but not your income moving into the lategame.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money.
I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool...
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money.
I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool...
You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money.
I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool...
You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
Then why the hell should it be my responsability that some high master can't try to qualify for some tournament only to lose in the first round and if no one watch they just won't have sponsor (plus sponsor more then anyone want the big names). Anyway this is way of the balance point, so I will end it here, do a blog about it if you want to talk about it more.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
zealots are hard countering marauder heavy comp but terran need it to survive colossi+storm, about ultrals yes, they need also revert it to early lotv state with 8 armor and that should be it.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: But please don't buff the liberator, It doesn't encourage entertaining gameplay for either the player or an audience watching.
On April 20 2018 05:28 ReachTheSky wrote: You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
And conversely why should hosts care that some random TL poster doesn't like their tournaments when the majority of the community seems to be happy with it? So some players feel left out, per your logic, maybe they should "negotiate with tournament hosts" to get included in the next invitational then.
They don't expect the players to fund the tournaments, it's the viewers than do, so your earlier argument about the poor players watching is a strawman to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to support an invitational that doesn't want to. They exist purely because there is a demand for it.
I could see this argument if the vast majority of tournaments were invitationals, but they make up a tiny fraction. There are plenty of opportunities for a player to show off their skill. If they get that offended by being excluded from an invitational, they need to grow up a bit.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is anything besides a net nerf. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is a net buff. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse.
I would have to go back to the editor to see what marauders get.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is a net buff. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse.
I would have to go back to the editor to see what marauders get.
It's always a good idea to be sure. I would be very shocked if the numbers say otherwise though.
On April 20 2018 05:28 ReachTheSky wrote: You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
And conversely why should they care that some random TL poster doesn't like their tournaments when the majority of the community seems to be happy with it? So some players feel left out, per your logic, maybe they should "negotiate with tournament hosts" to get included in the next invitational then.
They don't expect the players to fund the tournaments, it's the viewers than do, so your earlier argument about the poor players watching is a strawman to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to support an invitational that doesn't want to. They exist purely because there is a demand for it.
Or you know, the TOs/producers could just stop milking the community and do what real business owners/producers do. Outside of sc2 esports, noone else in the entertainment industry is expecting or even suggesting fans to finance events lol. There is something very wrong with this picture. Not only are the TOs/TPs saying "screw you" to everyone not invited but they are suggesting to you it's your duty to finance their events so that they can make money LOL. This is called entitlement.
On April 20 2018 06:14 xTJx wrote: Zerg late game vs mech is basicaly vipers suiciding in atempt to get good blinding clouds, literaly 1 chance to win, very stupid imo.
yeah they really should nerf blinding cloud, makes zerg way too strong vs mech
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
You have partial information on the winrate statistics, gained via third-party sources like Aligulac.
Blizzard has full information on winrate statistics, gained via records of every SC2 game people play.
If Blizzard says one thing and you say another, I'm gonna have to trust Blizzard on this one.
On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen. Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late.
You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event.
I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events.
I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad.
When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can"
It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad.
Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense.
And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. Why on earth would I want to care about a caster's/event's bottom line when they exclude the entire community minus a handful of players?
Because I would rather see Rifkin invite korean players so he can get 3-4k viewers instead of waching avilo vs the riddler. And because I want Rifkin to pay his rent so he can continue to make tournaments. I don't know about you but in the world I live it's mostly if not all about the money. To each his own I guess.
On April 20 2018 05:28 ReachTheSky wrote: You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
And conversely why should they care that some random TL poster doesn't like their tournaments when the majority of the community seems to be happy with it? So some players feel left out, per your logic, maybe they should "negotiate with tournament hosts" to get included in the next invitational then.
They don't expect the players to fund the tournaments, it's the viewers than do, so your earlier argument about the poor players watching is a strawman to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to support an invitational that doesn't want to. They exist purely because there is a demand for it.
Or you know, the TOs/producers could just stop milking the community and do what real business owners/producers do. Outside of sc2 esports, noone else in the entertainment industry is expecting or even suggesting fans to finance events lol. There is something very wrong with this picture. Not only are the TOs/TPs saying "screw you" to everyone not invited but they are suggesting to you it's your duty to finance their events so that they can make money LOL. It's pretty low.
Directly fan financed movies are a thing. Indirectly, ticket sales finance movies. Lots of webcomics are fan financed via patreon and things like that. Pretty much all sports are fan financed either directly via ticket sales/donations or indirectly (ESPN has money to pay for deals because they suck $100+ from each person with the channel per year)
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
You have partial information on the winrate statistics, gained via third-party sources like Aligulac.
Blizzard has full information on winrate statistics, gained via records of every SC2 game people play.
If Blizzard says one thing and you say another, I'm gonna have to trust Blizzard on this one.
Well tbf the mass sc2 games played shouldn't mean as much (balance-wise) as the few on the elite level.
That being said terran really isn't dominating right now (regardless of what people claiming ravens are unbeatable seem to believe). Maru is the only terran who's actually looking unbeatable. ByuN even struggled to beat Elazer with mass raven ffs, and Elazer's weakest areas are ZvT and lategame.
On April 20 2018 06:17 ReachTheSky wrote: Or you know, the TOs/producers could just stop milking the community and do what real business owners/producers do. Outside of sc2 esports, noone else in the entertainment industry is expecting or even suggesting fans to finance events lol. There is something very wrong with this picture. Not only are the TOs/TPs saying "screw you" to everyone not invited but they are suggesting to you it's your duty to finance their events so that they can make money LOL. This is called entitlement.
Er, what exactly are ticket sales and subscriptions then, if not fans supporting entertainment? Pay-per-view fights? Televised sports have advertisers, but are also financed by cable TV subscriptions. Musicians survive on song sales and royalties from music services, all of which come from fans. And frankly, its disingenuous to compare that kind of industry to SC2 community events in the first place. Local events or entertainers frequently survive on 'donations' the world over.
Who exactly is the entitled one here I wonder. Consumers speak with their wallets. They don't need you speaking for them. I'm pretty sure no one is forcing or blackmailing me into supporting SC2 events I like.
In any case, I'm going to stop here because there's no evidently no point in discussing this with you any further.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
You have partial information on the winrate statistics, gained via third-party sources like Aligulac.
Blizzard has full information on winrate statistics, gained via records of every SC2 game people play.
If Blizzard says one thing and you say another, I'm gonna have to trust Blizzard on this one.
Well tbf the mass sc2 games played shouldn't mean as much (balance-wise) as the few on the elite level.
That being said terran really isn't dominating right now (regardless of what people claiming ravens are unbeatable seem to believe). Maru is the only terran who's actually looking unbeatable. ByuN even struggled to beat Elazer with mass raven ffs, and Elazer's weakest areas are ZvT and lategame.
I was thinking more of quality than quantity. Blizzard, like any tech company worthy of the name, presumably collects any number of metrics on every game played, not just the raw winrate like aligulac does. Stuff like time elapsed, supply counts, etc, all mean a lot in terms of balance and what exactly to balance.
Point being, it's a pretty safe assumption that Blizzard is better informed about balance than some random forum whiner.
Not wanting to fix the raven anti-armor missile just because Terran isn't doing that well is absolute nonsense. You can't keep something in the game that is broken (yes it is) just for the sake of maintaining an illusion of balance. If you think Terran needs help, make the anti-armor change as you proposed earlier and buff something else, and by that not just a +10 viking HP but something substantial.
Now, to think that Terran needs help in PvT is one thing, but to even consider a Liberator buff to be that change is beyond crazy.. I'm not even willing to argument about it.. This is the worst terran unit you could ever buff... alongside the marine.
Please, consider something else, for the sake of your player base that doesnt play terran.
On April 20 2018 06:51 Snarosc wrote: Not wanting to fix the raven anti-armor missile just because Terran isn't doing that well is absolute nonsense. You can't keep something in the game that is broken (yes it is)
How is it broken? It doesn't serve the purpose that Blizzard intended when they came up with the ability, but that doesn't make it broken. It serves what Terran actually needs in late game which is usable splash against Zerg hordes.
I really think buffing the marauder again is the best thing right now as bio is struggling a LOT vs Protoss and buffing maybe Liberators, which already are very strong doesnt sound that good to me.
I think the Balance Team is spot on with their analysis (TvZ will probably become slightly Terran favored because of Ravens but they will nerf the AAM for sure) but I'm a little bit disappointed that they still waiting with new changes. TvP is pretty much the same since IEM Katowice, that's allready 1 1/2 Months and a lot data to analyse.
The Raven nerf will probably go through in the next patch and i'm fine with it, TvZ lategame is realy stale because of it right now. Maybe they give the AAM 10 flat splash dmg insted of 5, little bit sugar for the cry babys.
They need to buff the Widow Mine in some way. In TvP, every Factory unit is either useless or has a very narrow time window to be effectiv. Reducing the WM cost to 50min / 25 gas would make transitions easier, buffing the splash dmg vs shields would be also something to consider.
+10 hp for the viking is also a nice little buff, of course +15 hp or an extra speed buff wouldn't hurt either.
I'm not shure about the liberator, it's allready a powerfull unit but maybe they kann give him +5 dmg so he can 2 shot stalker with +1 airattack?
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
You have partial information on the winrate statistics, gained via third-party sources like Aligulac.
Blizzard has full information on winrate statistics, gained via records of every SC2 game people play.
If Blizzard says one thing and you say another, I'm gonna have to trust Blizzard on this one.
Well tbf the mass sc2 games played shouldn't mean as much (balance-wise) as the few on the elite level.
That being said terran really isn't dominating right now (regardless of what people claiming ravens are unbeatable seem to believe). Maru is the only terran who's actually looking unbeatable. ByuN even struggled to beat Elazer with mass raven ffs, and Elazer's weakest areas are ZvT and lategame.
I was thinking more of quality than quantity. Blizzard, like any tech company worthy of the name, presumably collects any number of metrics on every game played, not just the raw winrate like aligulac does. Stuff like time elapsed, supply counts, etc, all mean a lot in terms of balance and what exactly to balance.
Point being, it's a pretty safe assumption that Blizzard is better informed about balance than some random forum whiner.
Best quality you can find is stats from tournaments, there are no secret stats or things blizzard knows better than players, else they would have skipped the broodlords infestors area, mass SH, mass reapers, mass blink, and now mass raven, but no it takes age before they finally realize it should be fixed.
Not sure if its just me but does anyone find that ghosts/ravens having command card priority over marine/marauder extremely frustrating? It complicates micro a lot since you need to press tab or have a separate control group which is very straining on your ability to effectively split during engagements. "Oh I didn't EMP every templar, i better split, oh wait i can't stim my ghosts, guess those clump of units all die" This isn't a whine post, just a QOL suggestion for terran. In fact I would be okay with making command card priority a customizable option for all races
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
Just give the Viking 20 more hp and reduce the medivac boost upgrade cost, and constrain ravens to a limited number of anti-armor missiles, like spidermines in bw.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: It might be a terrible idea, but why not come back to the old widow mine to fix TvP? It would make mine drop a lot more viable and would make terran early-mid game stronger by forcing P to have detection. And beeing able to build 10 mine a minute isn't that good for terran since you don't want that many mines anyway and your factory isn't that usefull for anything else in the early game.
TvZ would not be to broken by it I think since Ling-Bane-Hydra usually is the kind of army who clean anything up or get destroyed it dosen't dance arround like Ling-Bane-Muta. And tanks are better against it anyway.
I actually kinda agree with this. I think a slight damage nerf to Raven would be good cause then it'll probably equalize all the Terran MU, but I always thought the widow mine nerf since 4.0 was kinda too much. Course, since Protoss no longer have a Mothership Core and Photon Overcharge, it does make defending against Mine Drops a bit much but increasing the recharge time might make up for it.
Mod Edit: avilo's post has been put into spoilers because we want the community to be able to read posts and discuss within this thread without seeing the balance whine that he always puts forth. + Show Spoiler +
Sighs.
a) ravens are not an issue - if they are unwilling to mention carrier+HT or viper/brood/spore/infestor in the same paragraph, then they should not be speaking from their anti-terran bias as they always do. Tired of it for years. "Balance team" is more of a "how do we nerf Terran from winning" team at this point.
The balance team should never mention anything raven related without mentioning swarmhost/viper/infestor/carrier in the same sentence. They nerf one, have to nerf all the others, or it's intrinsically an unfair game late game.
Why is it perfectly fine for Zerg to get an invulnerable late game army with no counter from Terran? And why is it ok for Protoss to mass almost purely carrier with HT/archon underneath? But it's not OK that Terran has some counter to these things? Raven is the only counter, and even then it's not a good counter unless you have 20 of them on full energy.
b) TvP has been imbalanced in Protoss favor for months, almost over a year now. Triple nexus / chrono / shield batteries / widow mine nerf puts toss too far ahead.
Most games Protoss will have 3rd nexus, be invulnerable to any form of harrassment, and have 10 gateway + double forge + stargate + twilight + charge + blink + robo and the Terran player's 3rd CC is half way completed while on 3 rax....
wait what????????????????????????????????????
This is not acceptable for a live version of a game to have something that ridiculous. The match-up needs adjusting. A huge issue was the arbitrary nerf to widow mines being detectable. This made it so Protoss now does not need to fear mine drops, and shield battery makes banshees bad as well.
The widow mine nerf + all the other things means Protoss can open 3 nexus + twilight with zero detection, and never be afraid of dying or taking damage from mines/banshees. This is HUGE. They don't need to invest into a robo, an observer, an oracle, a stargate...all of that money goes for a 3rd nexus. Widow mine needs a revert, and shield batteries should not be able to perma heal through banshee harrass. Why is it OK for an auto-cast building to allow probes to be invincible versus a banshee? The entire Terran's build order is dedicated to getting the banshee and cloak out and it's completely nullified by a 100 mineral building that requires zero attention?
TvP is terribly balanced atm, for the above reasons. Why were none of the mentioned or known about by professional balance developers?
Honestly, Terran late game is not that bad if it were like HOTS and both players are on an even economy, equal base count, about equivalent production and upgrades.
But currently in LOTV is it fair when Protoss had unattackable 3 base, still can counter-harrass you with a prism on the map, and then also has 10 gateways double forge + all tech up versus Terran with a half finished 3rd CC and 3 barracks with just the 4th and 5th barracks coming online?
Yeh, that's the definition of something utterly wrong.
On April 20 2018 07:58 DieuCure wrote: It's good that they admit that the TV is in a horrible posture. And that they took into account the "just play like Maru" meme.
On the other hand they will probably nerf the raven fast enough since the only ZvT won will be those of Dark and Solar in Ro32.
If PatchZerglett loses to the GumiGod and fails to get out of the group, they'll probably delete ghosts and ravens then force Afreeka to replay the group.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
You have partial information on the winrate statistics, gained via third-party sources like Aligulac.
Blizzard has full information on winrate statistics, gained via records of every SC2 game people play.
If Blizzard says one thing and you say another, I'm gonna have to trust Blizzard on this one.
Well tbf the mass sc2 games played shouldn't mean as much (balance-wise) as the few on the elite level.
That being said terran really isn't dominating right now (regardless of what people claiming ravens are unbeatable seem to believe). Maru is the only terran who's actually looking unbeatable. ByuN even struggled to beat Elazer with mass raven ffs, and Elazer's weakest areas are ZvT and lategame.
I was thinking more of quality than quantity. Blizzard, like any tech company worthy of the name, presumably collects any number of metrics on every game played, not just the raw winrate like aligulac does. Stuff like time elapsed, supply counts, etc, all mean a lot in terms of balance and what exactly to balance.
Point being, it's a pretty safe assumption that Blizzard is better informed about balance than some random forum whiner.
Best quality you can find is stats from tournaments, there are no secret stats or things blizzard knows better than players, else they would have skipped the broodlords infestors area, mass SH, mass reapers, mass blink, and now mass raven, but no it takes age before they finally realize it should be fixed.
You need to actually read the stats from tournaments and realize that TvZ is slightly Zerg favored–exactly like Blizzard said:
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
On April 20 2018 07:58 DieuCure wrote: It's good that they admit that the TV is in a horrible posture. And that they took into account the "just play like Maru" meme.
On the other hand they will probably nerf the raven fast enough since the only ZvT won will be those of Dark and Solar in Ro32.
If PatchZerglett loses to the GumiGod and fails to get out of the group, they'll probably delete ghosts and ravens then force Afreeka to replay the group.
Off topic, but would it physically pain you to say anything positive about a non-Korean player? It feels like 95% of your posts on here are just shitting on foreigners, saying their accomplishments don't count and that only Koreans should be allowed to play SC2.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
Don't forget guardian shield, since it counts for every attack it makes the marauder attack have -4 instead of -2.
I do think that Terran could use something to push the midgame power level a bit higher. In the most recent games I see, its true that with shield batteries and a plethora of other factors that Protoss really doesn't feel the need to build a fast robo for detection via observers, as Banshees are made really useless if one builds a shield battery right in the middle of the mineral line, and widow mines can only shoot once before pretty much being killed if the Protoss is paying attention. It feels really bad sometimes playing ladder and fighting Protoss and getting next to nothing in terms of harass damage while the Protoss can put up his upgrades and third base without a lot of retaliation. Any early harass has to transition quickly to 3 racks or you just don't have enough ground to defend, and it takes too much time to build a MMM force to push out at a meaningful time where the Protoss is stretched thin. If the Protoss is simply paying attention, he can either bulk his army size with warp ins if I try to move out or if I stay relatively passive and try to get more bases, he can either kill me outright or expand more aggressively than me, assuring he'll have a resource advantage that he can spin towards the late game, where apart from massive control and great macro decisions, Terrans just die, and lets be honest, Protoss lategame micro is much easier than Terran micro, no matter what Protoss players say about splitting templar and storm dropping is micro intensive. I just don't like playing against Protoss, because it does feel rather hopeless unless Im just straight up better than the opponent. Nothing I do can cripple the protoss fast enough or effectively enough to let me transition to a stronger mid-late game, and because of it it just feels that the Protoss has to make a mistake for me to win. I'd love it if there was something in the Terran build to force the Protoss to be a little less confident. Something that will make the Protoss think twice about building oracles to harass whilst taking a third base, something that is a viable counter towards them so its not just a question of Ok, I'll harass and never let the Terran take a 3rd or move out while I get a totally free third base that only dies if the Terran suicides the army on it!
Took them a long while to admit PvT was in a bad spot (both design and balance-wise).
I wonder why they took more than a month to post a community update that, while very detailed, has no actual gameplay application. It lacks any real suggestion as to what needs to be done, and they haven't even insinuated when they plan on dealing with the problems they stated.
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM. On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
Don't forget guardian shield, since it counts for every attack it makes the marauder attack have -4 instead of -2.
If you consider that protoss is almost always +1 upgrade ahead, its actually -6 compared to Hots marauder. Let that sink in, 6 damage difference PER marauader PER shot. The problem is further amplified by the fact that chargelots are more effective which makes colossus sniping much harder.
On April 20 2018 11:00 xTJx wrote: Nothing about the cannon shield battery immortal, guess it will be adressed once a zerg loses another GSL finals to cheese.
I have no idea what "Cannon shield battery immortal" (lol) is but it's certainly not a thing at pro level
On April 20 2018 11:00 xTJx wrote: Nothing about the cannon shield battery immortal, guess it will be adressed once a zerg loses another GSL finals to cheese.
I have no idea what "Cannon shield battery immortal" (lol) is but it's certainly not a thing at pro level
I think he's referring to printf's favorite build, which is mostly just an NA ladder thing.
Demuslim on why Protoss has an advantage over Terran:
Hey! Hard to pinpoint one thing, there's several build orders for Protoss which are all viable, and have very different possibilities - Twilight = Aggressive Blink, Defensive blink (3 base), Nothing to do with blink but a fake out and tech, DT. Robo = Collosus 2 base, Collosus 3 base, Immortal, Warp prism aggression, Disruptor Drops. Stargate = Oracle 1x into phoenix, 2x oracle, 3x oracle +
They are all good openings, and can lead to very quick and efficient victories, anyone of them can change too based on what they're seeing, if a Protoss sees the Terran is going 3 cc (probe scout initially into the adept across the map) Lets say he was going robo initially into 3 base was his plan in mind, he can then very quickly transition into a warp prism opening and put on pressure. I feel there's a huge amount of lenience in Protoss builds that allow them to go from being "hardcountered" to doing the hard countering, now that example was very basic. But if you see a terran that goes 5 rax before his 3rd cc, there's no real getting out of what he's gonna do, if you see his addons, you can also tell what army comp you're gonna face, If you see 1/1/1 from a terran with an oracle for instance, you see the addons or lack of, and you can tell what's coming, and everything that comes out of a 1/1/1 has the a very similar response and won't really slow down a toss. If you see 3 cc, you can change, if you see 3 rax then 3rd cc, you have your 3rd up already and respond appropriately. Protoss will always get the 3rd up faster than the terran, they can scout better than a terran (Oracle or observers) and they get upgrades faster than a terran, they also have much better late game so the Terran is working with less readable. The shield battery is a very quick "Ah, so the terran is going to be pushing at X:xx minute mark, i'll throw up 3 shield batteries for the attack since my economy is better." All in all, when you play as a Terran vs Protoss, you pick a build at the start of the game, the issue comes in that once you've made your choice, that's it, can do the hard countering, or be hard countered, but as long as a Protoss scouts, he should never realistically be hard countered. It's a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors where they can change their answer. Extremely frustrating and very unforgiving for a terran.
If Blizzard wants to buff Terran in TvsP without affecting TvsZ, couldn't Blizzard buff shield damage by one of the Terran units? They added shield damage to WMs before.
They could pick a Terran unit and buff the shield damage to it. Adding only shield damage helps Terran in TvsP but keeps TvsZ the same,
On April 20 2018 11:00 xTJx wrote: Nothing about the cannon shield battery immortal, guess it will be adressed once a zerg loses another GSL finals to cheese.
I have no idea what "Cannon shield battery immortal" (lol) is but it's certainly not a thing at pro level
I think he's referring to printf's favorite build, which is mostly just an NA ladder thing.
His disciple TurkeyDano did bring it to NationWars. But yeah the build isn't great if your opponent knows what's up and just proxy hatches or nyduses in response.
On April 20 2018 12:28 EvanC wrote: I think a good but not too major nerf for the Raven would be to make the Anti-Armor Missile cost 100 energy
The problem with that is that it nerfs them early on where it isn't a problem and the anti-armor debuff is being used "as intended", and late game while ravens are a bit worse they still each have two missiles to spam all over the place.
I feel like the balance team just keeps sounding like reddit or team liquid forum warriors.
Like people actually think PvZ or PvT needs to be "fixed" when the balance and gameplay has been the best it's ever been in starcraft's history this year.
The only poor gameplay mechanic still in the game is mass raven; that's really it.
On April 20 2018 13:33 aish wrote: I feel like the balance team just keeps sounding like reddit or team liquid forum warriors.
Like people actually think PvZ or PvT needs to be "fixed" when the balance and gameplay has been the best it's ever been in starcraft's history this year.
The only poor gameplay mechanic still in the game is mass raven; that's really it.
PvsT balance is poor right now. That is the conclusion the Blizzard balance team has come to and they are correct. For more information on why PvsT balance is poor, I just posted the analysis by Demuslim above. If you can't find the analysis by Demuslim on why PvsT balance is poor, you can also read it here: www.reddit.com
On April 20 2018 13:33 aish wrote: I feel like the balance team just keeps sounding like reddit or team liquid forum warriors.
Like people actually think PvZ or PvT needs to be "fixed" when the balance and gameplay has been the best it's ever been in starcraft's history this year.
The only poor gameplay mechanic still in the game is mass raven; that's really it.
PvsT balance is poor right now. That is the conclusion the Blizzard balance team has come to and they are correct. For more information on why PvsT balance is poor, I just posted the analysis by Demuslim above. If you can't find the analysis by Demuslim on why PvsT balance is poor, you can also read it here: www.reddit.com
are you implying Demuslim gives an honest non-bias opinion or? no offense but-
On April 20 2018 13:33 aish wrote: I feel like the balance team just keeps sounding like reddit or team liquid forum warriors.
Like people actually think PvZ or PvT needs to be "fixed" when the balance and gameplay has been the best it's ever been in starcraft's history this year.
The only poor gameplay mechanic still in the game is mass raven; that's really it.
PvsT balance is poor right now. That is the conclusion the Blizzard balance team has come to and they are correct. For more information on why PvsT balance is poor, I just posted the analysis by Demuslim above. If you can't find the analysis by Demuslim on why PvsT balance is poor, you can also read it here: www.reddit.com
I wonder if we're seeing the dark side of removing the MSC. The SB enables a greedier early mid game, whereas the MSC enabled temporary safety in one location, and though the dps was high, the duration was fairly short.
One point that was touched on was that the SB enabled Protoss to hold third bases with minimal units. The difference with the MSC is that the pylons were usually more exposed and so were easier to take out.
On April 20 2018 13:57 FrkFrJss wrote: I wonder if we're seeing the dark side of removing the MSC. The SB enables a greedier early mid game, whereas the MSC enabled temporary safety in one location, and though the dps was high, the duration was fairly short.
One point that was touched on was that the SB enabled Protoss to hold third bases with minimal units. The difference with the MSC is that the pylons were usually more exposed and so were easier to take out.
One unintended consequence of the SB is making cloaked Banshees less effective, which allows Protoss to delay observers. Right now, some Protoss use a SB to offset the damage from cloaked Banshees. Before SB, Protoss needed to invest in a Robo and churn out an observer to stop cloaked Banshee harass. Now, the SB can limit damage from cloaked Banshee harass.
On April 20 2018 13:57 FrkFrJss wrote: I wonder if we're seeing the dark side of removing the MSC. The SB enables a greedier early mid game, whereas the MSC enabled temporary safety in one location, and though the dps was high, the duration was fairly short.
One point that was touched on was that the SB enabled Protoss to hold third bases with minimal units. The difference with the MSC is that the pylons were usually more exposed and so were easier to take out.
One unintended consequence of the SB is making cloaked Banshees less effective, which allows Protoss to delay observers. Right now, some Protoss use a SB to offset the damage from cloaked Banshees. Before SB, Protoss needed to invest in a Robo and churn out an observer to stop cloaked Banshee harass. Now, the SB can limit damage from cloaked Banshee harass.
I'm going to need some evidence on that one. If you have no detection and no detection on the way for a cloaked banshee you're still screwed--the Shield Battery buys you roughly 15 seconds of losing probes at a reduced rate before running out.
On April 20 2018 07:58 DieuCure wrote: It's good that they admit that the TV is in a horrible posture. And that they took into account the "just play like Maru" meme.
On the other hand they will probably nerf the raven fast enough since the only ZvT won will be those of Dark and Solar in Ro32.
If PatchZerglett loses to the GumiGod and fails to get out of the group, they'll probably delete ghosts and ravens then force Afreeka to replay the group.
Off topic, but would it physically pain you to say anything positive about a non-Korean player? It feels like 95% of your posts on here are just shitting on foreigners, saying their accomplishments don't count and that only Koreans should be allowed to play SC2.
To be honest, as a terran player it's super frustrating to only see foreign zergs (and to a lesser extent, protoss) be successful against koreans.
Balance asides, the other races being easier mechanically doesn't help. edit (point is that you quickly want to shit on some foreigners after some time)
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
200mmr difference is nothing because it's in the variance threshold of a player.
Plus if that's your argument I could say ByuN beating Elazer doesn't count for terran because it's Blizzcon + GSL champ against a random top foreigner. Same for Leenock because he can't even beat Elazer so it doesn't count...
See? Pretty stupid right? That's why nitpicking is tricky, it's a headache to search for relevant thresholds.
On April 20 2018 07:58 DieuCure wrote: It's good that they admit that the TV is in a horrible posture. And that they took into account the "just play like Maru" meme.
On the other hand they will probably nerf the raven fast enough since the only ZvT won will be those of Dark and Solar in Ro32.
If PatchZerglett loses to the GumiGod and fails to get out of the group, they'll probably delete ghosts and ravens then force Afreeka to replay the group.
Off topic, but would it physically pain you to say anything positive about a non-Korean player? It feels like 95% of your posts on here are just shitting on foreigners, saying their accomplishments don't count and that only Koreans should be allowed to play SC2.
To be honest, as a terran player it's super frustrating to only see foreign zergs (and to a lesser extent, protoss) be successful against koreans.
Balance asides, the other races being easier mechanically doesn't help. edit (point is that you quickly want to shit on some foreigners after some time)
The terran bias is strong in this one.
Although I agree that seeing almost only foreigners who play zerg be able to match the koreans is frustrating, in what way is it "To a lesser extent, protoss" ?
Cuz the only non-zerg foreigners who have been able to take maps or series against koreans recently iirc are Special and uThermal.. Since Neeb's form went down a bit, I haven't seen any foreign Protoss do anything against koreans.
Ravens are fine as they are but maybe they are bit too supply effecient. Maybe increase the Raven supply to 3.
Stronger liberators would just make tanks extinct again.
Making widow mines invisible after shooting when the widow mine uppgrade have been researched would help Terran in the midgame without making mines too strong early game.
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote: It might be a terrible idea, but why not come back to the old widow mine to fix TvP? It would make mine drop a lot more viable and would make terran early-mid game stronger by forcing P to have detection. And beeing able to build 10 mine a minute isn't that good for terran since you don't want that many mines anyway and your factory isn't that usefull for anything else in the early game.
TvZ would not be to broken by it I think since Ling-Bane-Hydra usually is the kind of army who clean anything up or get destroyed it dosen't dance arround like Ling-Bane-Muta. And tanks are better against it anyway.
They can do any changes they want, BUT NOT THIS ONE.
Widow mine is the worst designed unit in the game (swarm host might be close though), in the current version it is at least useful in certain situation but not stupidly frustrating and randomly game ending.
One of the best changes ever besides the MSC removal, was the widow mine change.
On April 20 2018 07:58 DieuCure wrote: It's good that they admit that the TV is in a horrible posture. And that they took into account the "just play like Maru" meme.
On the other hand they will probably nerf the raven fast enough since the only ZvT won will be those of Dark and Solar in Ro32.
If PatchZerglett loses to the GumiGod and fails to get out of the group, they'll probably delete ghosts and ravens then force Afreeka to replay the group.
Off topic, but would it physically pain you to say anything positive about a non-Korean player? It feels like 95% of your posts on here are just shitting on foreigners, saying their accomplishments don't count and that only Koreans should be allowed to play SC2.
To be honest, as a terran player it's super frustrating to only see foreign zergs (and to a lesser extent, protoss) be successful against koreans.
Balance asides, the other races being easier mechanically doesn't help. edit (point is that you quickly want to shit on some foreigners after some time)
The terran bias is strong in this one.
Although I agree that seeing almost only foreigners who play zerg be able to match the koreans is frustrating, in what way is it "To a lesser extent, protoss" ?
Cuz the only non-zerg foreigners who have been able to take maps or series against koreans recently iirc are Special and uThermal.. Since Neeb's form went down a bit, I haven't seen any foreign Protoss do anything against koreans.
I do feel for Blizzard, it seems nearly impossible to have all three races perfectly balanced. Even now TvZ seems fine, TvP does not. Any change to TvP will also affect TvZ... Arghh
Difficult choices...
I agree with their assessment that TvP require works though, as a Terran players it seems awfully P favored ( though I blame iton my skill)
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
[–]MVPItsmesoftSC2[S] 13 points 6 days ago* Also GSL Season 1 and GSL Super Tournament. Combined, the two tournaments produced the following winrates among Korean pros:
PvT obviously needs a fix. The other matchups are kinda fine, but I don't like the TvZ supreme late game. Ghosts are great and fun, but Ravens are cancer.
What I think would improve the game a lot balance and entertainment wise would be to: Nerf Raven AAM to do almost no DMG Buff Marauder (HOTS Marauder) Buff Viking (+HP) Buff Battle-Cruiser (I am not sure how here, but Terran needs some kind of Late game splash or massive Ranged damage) Buff Ultra (HOTS Ultra)
This should help a lot in PvT early/mid game and also TvZ late game, and make the game much more fun. Current PvT is simply disgusting to watch and while I like TvZ a lot the super late game is just ridiculous :/
Btw just looking at this, it just points out how idiotic the Raven AAM is. Its essential for Terran to have some kind of viable Late Game, but to nerf it (because the design and gameplay with that is simply terrible) we need to buff at least 2-3 Terran units to balance it out. LoL
On April 20 2018 23:34 Geo.Rion wrote: sooo... there are no proposed changes at this time? the update is that, yeah, we re not gonna do a balance update, even tho maybe we should?
ya, when it only a "maybe" its tough to create a clear cut pathway for changes.
I think this is the right direction, to make some kind of buff to Terran mid-game. If there is a reasonable buff, I'm fine with a Raven nerf. I would have preferred to see more reasonable options for a buff than just vikings or liberators. What a strange pair of units to mention. I think a liberator buff is unwarranted, unless we're talking about their anti-air attack. And even then, I don't see how that would make any difference in the game.
Meanwhile, the design and method of production of the Viking makes no sense in comparison to Carriers, Corrupters, and even Phoenix and Mutas. Here you have a dedicated anti-air unit that is countered by 2/3rds of the other air units in the game. The main issues with the Viking relate to large Carrier leash range and the fact that 20 corrupters can be produced at a time. In order for the Viking to be useful, a significant damage buff is needed. In order for the Viking to reclaim the role it had in Wings of Liberty and HOTS, its range could be increased.
The reason Terran no longer has a significant mid-game is "death by a thousand cuts", of sorts. The worker change means the timing in comparison to workers built for Z and P is a bit later for specific builds like the 2-1-1 double medivac marine drop. Unit changes are also significant though. Since HOTS, here are things that have been buffed which affect Terran mid-game:
TvZ 1. Hydras (HP buff) 2. Banelings (HP buff) 3. Queen AA range buff
TvP 1. Zealot charge damage buff 2. Warp prism pickup range buff(In my opinion, this alone gave Protoss as strong a mid-game as Terran.) 3. Minor Stalker damage buff
With all this said, I think for Terran mid-game to be strong again you need a unit that synergizes very well with MMM. Mines filled this role in the past. Liberators already do so, but have reasonable counter play since they are stationary. The idea behind MMM is that the playstyle is stick-and-move. Previously mentioned buffs to Z and P have made them quite a bit easier to defend with the units already mentioned plus Immortals or Roach/Ravager. Here are units that I believe could be reasonably buffed.
1. The Hellbat (revert them to only taking 2 spaces in a medivac rather than 4 or increase damage of BF for Hellbats) 2. The Widow mine (revert build time but let them be permanently cloaked after they have drilling claws.) 3. The Marauder (If you don't want to revert the damage of Marauders, at least let concussive shell deny chargelots from hitting.) 4. The Medivac (allow them to heal 2 units at once or increase the power of the upgrade to medivac boost)
The most obvious changes would be: - Revert marauders from 2x10 to 1x20 - Make Raven's AAM dmg unstackable - buff Viking HP slightly
from there I'd wait a bit and see how the balance looks like. If PvT is still problematic for Terran I'd would rather have WM reworked than Tank or Lib. Personally I'd prefer to change WM more into ordinary landmine (similar to spider mine from BW): 50minerals 0 gas 1 or even 0 supply 40-50hp one use - blows up can only target ground Once burrowed cannot be moved (drilling claws upg would allow for unlimited reburrow)
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience. There is a whole community of these zerg players who truly believe if they cant turtle to hive tech and amove to victory the game is broken.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
Hey man. Sorry u are having a hard time.. being terran bio player myself i been there..i would encourage u to watch as many pro vods / reps as u can of maru and byun..bio is not impossible to play currently..and u dont need their level of control to get at least m1 even low gm. Style is a bit different now and the raven can be very helpful early on in tvt to hit strong timing on mech player..watch some of innovation tvt from nation wars....wesg and code s maru for tvz...tvp on the other hand i dont have any advice except cyclone push into 2 base 5 rax all ins can win games lol..anyways no quit! No other good rts.
On April 20 2018 03:32 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I sympathize with Blizzard's difficulty with finding a PvT change that doesn't screw up the other match-ups, but it really shouldn't have taken them this long to realize that there was a problem and that terrans have been forced into two base all-inning every game for the past two-three months.
And Blizzard's reluctance in nerfing the raven just because the match-up doesn't favour terran is nonsense. Balance arguments shouldn't prop up egregious design problems.
Just want to give 100% opposite feedback of this! Blizz is (imo) doing the right thing by putting balance as a priority over "game design". Sc2 evolves because its played professionally..if we want it to stay that way then balance has to take priority. I am not in disagreement whatsoever that late game overall has a design issue, but I do find it hilarious that people continue to pretend that the raven is the only unit that creates static boring games..zerg and toss comps highlighted in multiple posts on this thread (Spore/Viper/BL/corrupter/infestor) Carrier tempest HT. Both accomplish the same thing. So stop sending incomplete bias whines @ Blizzard and be honest. If you want that shit gone it all has to go period. Otherwise the meta evolves where the races that do have it figure out how to stay alive long enough to get it and the opposite has no counter..winrates get skewed hard and forums ignite with whineflames.
On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
I feel that the real problem here is not that these interactions in the late-game are so much different, but that this situation cam be played for 30 minutes without much is happening.
On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
I feel that the real problem here is not that these interactions in the late-game are so much different, but that this situation cam be played for 30 minutes without much is happening.
The problem with that is long range and energy trading. If theres few/no resources being lost the game can go on for hours.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Spot on. And no, Dark winning against Maru after a failed proxy rax doesn't really count.
Just build more Vipers and infestors. Chip away at the raven and viking count with parasitic bomb. Use blinding cloud in combination with swarmhosts and fungals on clumps of ghosts or infantry for free trades. No one is doing this yet because they haven't thought of it.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
A glorified "Play like Maru" post.
on rare occasions i've been able to catch a Korean Code "S" terran stream on twitch. when they're in the heat of the mid-game the terran guy will move his screen to do some micro of his army then go someplace else 0.7 seconds later and i'll say to myself.. "ummm, exactly what did he just do there?"
half the time i can't even follow the micro watching it on twitch much less execute it myself. my APM is ~125.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
A glorified "Play like Maru" post.
"play like X terran playing" is by far the worst balance whine in this community seems to think is ok to say.
but the fact is, there are just as many terran players playing in these diamond leagues as there is protoss players.
and my post wasn't even implying you play like maru, because if you did you would be GM. so what were you trying to say?
Diamond players like me must accept that a diverse race 3-race RTS can't be perfectly balanced at several different levels of play. 1 race is at a disadvantage in the Diamond league and players just have to accept it.
i think that race is terran. but, it really doesn't matter which race it is. perfect balance won't happen in this league and i am happy to give up some degree of balance in exchange for the fun of 3 diverse races.
I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics.
On April 21 2018 08:58 blunderfulguy wrote: I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics.
David Kim released some of their internal metrics and went into the balance process during a Blizzcon (2014?) and the community basically rioted.
I really can't blame Blizzard for not opening that can of worms again.
Interesting observations from Blizz. I do think caution is warranted. Fixing PvT late midgame and TvZ lategame is no easy matter. One false move and the matchup just swings entirely the other way.
I would like to make note of a small sample size of games between Classic and Maru that have taken place over the course of the last several months, and here is why: They are both beasts in the MU historically, if not the best for their respective races in the MU atm.
TvP obviously has some serious issues at this moment, and has for some time now. I'm fairly certain even the highest level Protoss players can admit this. The last several offline series I have seen between Classic and Maru for example basically tend to go like this: Classic takes a quick 3rd base, (which he can comfortably manage to do - even if he's opted for early pressure via gateway units, oracles or whatnot), + double forge, all the while tech-ing up at an insane rate and just comfortably throwing down a few shield batteries if he feels at all threatened. Maru attempts some variation of a 2 base play (because really, what other option does he have?!) and as far as I can remember, Maru has only managed to take a map or two off of Classic in like the last 2-3 series I've seen them play.
After Maru loses to Classic's greedy 3-base-hold, the camera pans to Maru's face, and guess what Maru is doing? He's literally laughing. Now, I've been an avid follower of Maru's career since the WoL days, and typically Maru only laughs after a match for a number of reasons:
1: He has made a terrible blunder in the game resulting in a bad loss/lucky victory. 2: He has gone full-on boss-mode and easy rolled his opponent ftw (typically after humiliating them). 3: He has flat out lost because the MU is currently lopsided or even broken.
So, I hate to say this as it comes across as a blatant balance whine, but I guess at this point it actually is a balance complaint, seeing as Maru virtually has not chance vs Classic in a straight up Macro game.
Now, I think this is important to consider seeing as Classic has the best PvT in the world right now, and Maru has historically had some of the best TvP in the world if you go back even into HotS. Again, I think this is important, basically because if you have arguably the top two players in a specific mu going at it head-to-head (in this case Classic's PvT and Maru's TvP), then shouldn't the map or series score be close?! I would say yes, it should be close!!
Since it has already been discussed to death, I will keep it brief. Terran HAS to get early economic damage done vs Toss to even have a chance going into mid-late game. Herein lies the problem. Even if the Terran can get some amount of econ damage done vs the Toss, the Toss is usually much further along with their upgrades, another expansion etc etc, plus the fact the chrono changes allow them to basically just catch back up in econ if they do take an early hit. Not needing quick obs early game (due the widow mine changes and the ease at which Toss can get Oracles), plus the option to throw SB's in mineral lines make it next to impossible for the Terran to put a dent in the Toss' march to a greedy 3 base, highly upgraded/tech'd-out-army.
If Toss wants to take a greedy third with minimal units, all the while going double forge and tech-ing up, Terran SHOULD be able to punish Toss for this greed. And since they currently can't, something NEEDS to be done.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
Oh here we go, why don't you guys PM eachother instead of taking dick shots at eachother in passive aggressive posts?
On topic, I find ravens are rather strong, I feel like nerfing the missle range or making it so that it fizzles out like the old seeker would be better. Damage is fine, I think, just giving more access to counter play besides splitting would allow for some more fun engagements. .
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors. Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost. Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good". The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors. Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost. Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good". The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors. Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost. Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good". The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Your infestors are not supposed to kill the ghosts. They should enable your army to kill the ghosts as you correctly identified. Similarly, the Zerg army is also used to protect your infestors/vipers against ghosts. If burrow costs energy and would be visible (like mines), I'd be okay with burrowed infestor casting.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
I don't think you know what "hardcounter" means. Vipers and Infestors vs Ghosts is a micro game as they counter each other and vs Broodlings it's extremely hard to get off Snipes.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors. Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost. Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good". The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem.
Before the Raven buff TvZ lategame was Zerg favored so that's definitely not true.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
I don't think you know what "hardcounter" means. Vipers and Infestors vs Ghosts is a micro game as they counter each other and vs Broodlings it's extremely hard to get off Snipes.
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote: Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors. Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost. Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good". The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem.
Before the Raven buff TvZ lategame was Zerg favored so that's definitely not true.
Dont forget the spore / spine wall that can move with creep. The late game balance isnt a problem now with ghosts and ravens being able to compete with hive tech..the problem is that both comps promote turtling ..so you will get stupid long games. I honestly think the problem started with the baneling and hydra buffs..previously it made sense that hive tech was stronger than tier 3 terran units because terran had an adv in the midgame so zerg couldnt just comfortably go up to 80 drones and hive tech.. hydra ling bane makes that possible now so we are going to see more and more stalemate type games..neither player has incentive to take aggressive risks. 2 1 1 is really the only aggro style and we have seen it used with success vs top level zergs by only 1 player. Even with that we saw foreign zergs like reynor go into a late game with a decisive lead after countering properly. I think a raven nerf would be ok if they revert banes and hydras to force the zerg player to play less greedy or be punished and we are way closer to the best era of tvz imo pre bl infestor wol. Obviously would have to consider the zvp implications and compensate properly. Tvp honestly i think the SB aggro stuff is cancer make it need a nearby nexus to build. Chrono also needs a look if we ever want to see terran macro style again. The stuff in demuslims post is spot on..bias or not if you actually read it its difficult to make a good counter arguement.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice.
And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other.
Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
On April 21 2018 08:58 blunderfulguy wrote: I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics.
David Kim released some of their internal metrics and went into the balance process during a Blizzcon (2014?) and the community basically rioted.
I really can't blame Blizzard for not opening that can of worms again.
this is good point.
its also interesting to note that the new lead game designer/balancer introduced himself at Blizzcon as the guy who represents the balance team. he didn't acknowledge whether or not he is the team leader. The crap said by some "sc2 fans" about Browder and Kim was brutal. i can't blame the Blizzard employee for presenting his position on the SC2 design/balance team in such an oblique manner. notice i'm not naming him in this post either. LOL.
On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote: [quote] I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice.
And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other.
Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%?
Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots"
Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games"
Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very young mad rager, stop talking"
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice.
And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other.
Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%?
Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots"
Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games"
Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very yound mad rager, stop talking"
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice.
And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other.
Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%?
Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots"
Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games"
Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very young mad rager, stop talking"
.............you were the one who started this entire discussion by quoting Aligulac stats. Now you're attacking Aligulac?
I was countering your claims before, but seeing as you've decided to do that yourself now, I clearly don't need to be here. Good luck, have fun.
(The ridiculous strawman you constructed doesn't even deserve a comment, and it undermines your argument far more than anything I could ever say)
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Oh look, an intelligent, well-reasoned, rational comment that supports its own claims with sound logic. No doubt it will soon be buried under the torrent of balance whine oneliners after nary a reply.
Seriously though, while I do agree with a lot of what you brought up here, it would probably be easier for Blizzard to create a brand-new RTS than actually fix all the ingrained design problems in SC2. The big design patches at the end of every year have been making progress in that regard (refer to the MSC) but it's a slow, gradual, improvement fraught with its own problems. Trying to juggle design problems with the continual need to maintain a reasonably-balanced game is a difficult if not impossible task, especially for a game like SC2 that, quite frankly, probably isn't worth that much in the way of time/effort/money for Blizzard.
And of course that's without bringing up how much of what you called "frustrating mechanics and gimmicks" is integral to race design and diversity in the first place. Warpgate is the archtypal example. It makes a mockery of the cardinal RTS principle of defender's advantage, but after 8 years of Protoss relying on it, removing it and balancing around Gateways would be a nightmare for the balance team, the progamers, and probably the viewers as well. And even if, by some miracle, warpgate was successfully removed and Protoss rebalanced around that, might we just be left with a shinier, beefier, gold-plated-alien version of Terran?
Does SC2 have too many frustrating gimmicks? Yes, most certainly. But sometimes it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta. My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion. You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others. LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity.
In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive.
Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people!
I am very glad, that Blizzard realized, that TvP is broken because P can tech up way too quickly. IMO this is what will lead to a good solution. Talking about individual units was never going to get us anywhere. However, I did play P during WOL and HOTS, so I know the alternative to fast P teching, and I didn't particularly like it either. Sometimes I think P is so broken b/c of the fast LOTV eco, but that also doesn't get me anywhere.
TvZ may be in a good spot by some balance metrics, but there still is something that bothers me very much: Hydras are way too good! They are not necessarily OP in direct battles, but on the whole, they are astonishingly cost efficient against Bio, Mech and Air. This versatility is what really bothers me. It makes the game dull to play and watch. I can see this as a low prio problem, because on paper it looks sort of ok balance wise. I'd still call this a problem.
I do not like Blizzard looking at the Liberator as a means to change game balance. They had to nerf it like 3 times to give it a decent spot in the game. Buffing the Liberator is definetly a way to increase T win rate, we've been there, but IMO that would be the same mistake as when they put the Hydra in its current position.
Still, after like 3 months of nothing, at least they could have thrown out a change or two to just see what happens. There is long road up ahead and they are hardly bothering to set one foot before the other.
Protoss can tech way too quickly at any rate and Z can reach Hydras quite conveniently. Cut the research time for stim by 50%. While this change doesn't affect unit interactions at all, it can change build orders a lot and I think that alone can solve most of any problems where T is involved. It might even put an end to this cyclone nonsense in TvT
On April 22 2018 05:49 pvsnp wrote: Oh look, an intelligent, well-reasoned, rational comment that supports its own claims with sound logic. No doubt it will soon be buried under the torrent of balance whine oneliners after nary a reply.
Seriously though, while I do agree with a lot of what you brought up here, it would probably be easier for Blizzard to create a brand-new RTS than actually fix all the ingrained design problems in SC2. The big design patches at the end of every year have been making progress in that regard (refer to the MSC) but it's a slow, gradual, improvement fraught with its own problems. Trying to juggle design problems with the continual need to maintain a reasonably-balanced game is a difficult if not impossible task, especially for a game like SC2 that, quite frankly, probably isn't worth that much in the way of time/effort/money for Blizzard.
And of course that's without bringing up how much of what you called "frustrating mechanics and gimmicks" is integral to race design and diversity in the first place. Warpgate is the archtypal example. It makes a mockery of the cardinal RTS principle of defender's advantage, but after 8 years of Protoss relying on it, removing it and balancing around Gateways would be a nightmare for the balance team, the progamers, and probably the viewers as well. And even if, by some miracle, warpgate was successfully removed and Protoss rebalanced around that, might we just be left with a shinier, beefier, gold-plated-alien version of Terran?
Does SC2 have too many frustrating gimmicks? Yes, most certainly. But sometimes it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie.
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding your warp gate example and question of what Protoss would become, I think the Brood War archetypes are a good example. In SC2, Protoss would still retain its uniqueness without warp gates and, in the spirit of BW, would be geared even more towards more expensive, high tech, units with extra strength and durability to match. I'm not sure if I would actually advocate for their removal at this point for a few reasons, but I think it'd be interesting to try buffing Gateway units and moving warp gates to late(r) game tech. It's just silly how warp gates' existence compromised base Gateway unit strength and forced Blizzard to add in rather silly bandaids like the Mothership Core, or incredibly potent shield batteries and early-game recall as we see now. It's like a gimmicky house of cards!
Overall, you may be right that they're in a bit too deep with some stuff, but hopefully they can continue to address some of these mechanics! Clearly, they aren't completely blind to the issue, but I do wish they'd be willing to take more risks. If it can improve the long-term health of the game (as one would imagine by addressing frustrating mechanics!), it would be worth it in the long run. After all, the last thing one would want for their game is to be more frustrating based on design flaws.
On April 22 2018 06:36 QuinnTheEskimo wrote: I am very glad, that Blizzard realized, that TvP is broken because P can tech up way too quickly. IMO this is what will lead to a good solution. Talking about individual units was never going to get us anywhere. However, I did play P during WOL and HOTS, so I know the alternative to fast P teching, and I didn't particularly like it either. Sometimes I think P is so broken b/c of the fast LOTV eco, but that also doesn't get me anywhere.
TvZ may be in a good spot by some balance metrics, but there still is something that bothers me very much: Hydras are way too good! They are not necessarily OP in direct battles, but on the whole, they are astonishingly cost efficient against Bio, Mech and Air. This versatility is what really bothers me. It makes the game dull to play and watch. I can see this as a low prio problem, because on paper it looks sort of ok balance wise. I'd still call this a problem.
I do not like Blizzard looking at the Liberator as a means to change game balance. They had to nerf it like 3 times to give it a decent spot in the game. Buffing the Liberator is definetly a way to increase T win rate, we've been there, but IMO that would be the same mistake as when they put the Hydra in its current position.
Still, after like 3 months of nothing, at least they could have thrown out a change or two to just see what happens. There is long road up ahead and they are hardly bothering to set one foot before the other.
Protoss can tech way too quickly at any rate and Z can reach Hydras quite conveniently. Cut the research time for stim by 50%. While this change doesn't affect unit interactions at all, it can change build orders a lot and I think that alone can solve most of any problems where T is involved. It might even put an end to this cyclone nonsense in TvT
All that and your conclusion is "cut research time for stim by 50%"? What? sigh...
My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote: My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army.
I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day.
On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote: My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army.
I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day.
On April 22 2018 07:07 mierin wrote: My main balance problem is the ghost. EMP outranges psi storm, fungal growth, abduct, neural parasite and feedback. In a "perfect micro (tm)" situation, which IMO we are approaching with players like Maru, ghosts hard counter every other spellcaster.
Since spellcasters are the main focus for late game...there is no counter to ghosts. Notice I haven't even included steady shot in the equation.
High templars get feedback to remove enemy energy, and ghosts get EMP...what does zerg have?
"Just neural the opposing spellcaster" is not a valid argument as EMP/feedback both outrange neural parasite, and abduct if the zerg player could do it without getting EMP'd.
Zerg has free units. Neither Terran nor Protoss has the ability to spawn Broodlings, Locusts, Infested Terrans, or any equivalent. Interceptors cost minerals. Autoturrets cannot move. Only Zerg can produce an infinite army.
I'm not saying it's perfectly equivalent to EMP or Feedback, but isn't that the whole point of asymmetrical balance? There might be balance issues, but the core (asymmetrical) design still remains intact. Different races have different abilities. Otherwise we should just play mirrors all day every day.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta. My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion. You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others. LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity.
In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive.
Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people!
Yeah..pretty sad individual. Great reminder that a good percentage of people who post on these threads will attack literally any post that might evoke a conversation where one of their units could be nerfed. Ignore entirely the guy giving his seemingly honest and harmless feedback about why his experience in the game has diminished and full on flame him counter. Hope the op will recognize this and not let it further discourage him.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
LoneYoShi writes that they played the game for a long time and found an interaction that they enjoyed. The enjoyable interaction has gone away with the current meta. The game is no longer enjoyable for LoneYoShi. LoneYoShi expressed a frustration with the current meta. My interpretation of these community feedbacks, that get updated almost every week, is for Blizzard to communicate with us in the community and allow us to voice our opinions. LoneYoShi voiced their opinion. You, aish, then made an ad hominem attack. LoneYoShi said "I dislike the style" and you countered with "stop being worse than great". LoneYoShi said "I have tried various styles and found one that I enjoyed", you asked "have you tried doing different stuff?". LoneYoShi said "this is my opinion and I will do this thing, a thing that only affects me, to make me feel better", whereupon you asked if they had considered the interests of others. LoneYoShi have put their feelings and thoughts in writing and shared it with Blizzard, making the ones who control things aware of what some of the player base like and dislike. LoneYoShi then said that they will do something that they find worthwhile. Both identifying what needs to be done to feel better and sharing what's negative for others to learn something are good things to be doing. There is no alleged weakness in any of that. I see only mental strength and a non-accusational subjectivity.
In stark contrast, not a single sentence in your post contributed to anything constructive nor positive.
Please, be constructive and/or positive when replying to the posts of other people!
Yeah..pretty sad individual. Great reminder that a good percentage of people who post on these threads will attack literally any post that might evoke a conversation where one of their units could be nerfed. Ignore entirely the guy giving his seemingly honest and harmless feedback about why his experience in the game has diminished and full on flame him counter. Hope the op will recognize this and not let it further discourage him.
Funny how often these posts do just as much or more projecting as the posts they are trying to counter...
Exactly that. Zerg has no counter to energy based units. Ghosts haS EMP and snipe, as they both counter hard spellcadters. Protoss has feedbacks obviously. Zerg has nothing indeed, especially that Infestors are the most "nerfed to the ground" units in this game.
Ghost is just too rounded, has no weak sides. Its small model makes it hard to hit it with abduct for example or to snipe it. Infestors on the other hand are big cows, slow and easy to target.
When it comes to changes needed imo: Nerf Chronoboost to balance TvP and weaken lil bit protoss allins like "8gate chargelot" in ZvP. This will also give some more breathing room for Terran and Zerg in economy game and also with uogrades, that are so crutial. Its just not fair that Protoss can have 3/3 when 1/1 is finishing for Terran or Zerg.
i think the viking is very weak armour and HP wise
lil bit more liberator AA would be nice
Battlecruiser should be able to shoot while moving and should get bigger range and maybe lower the fire rate for bigger damage shots and for that cost can nerf the yamato tbh
Protoss:
protoss is in need of a robo unit which only AA ground unit with a spash damage
Zerg:
swarmhosts are highly annoying and the free units are can do so much free damage so quick which is bs
'd like to discuss something that's bothered me for aeons. The delay input dynamic. It's not just Terran, but it seems like Terran is the race most negatively affected by this, so I'll use mainly Terran examples I'm familiar with.
Here's the gist: When you assign multiple orders in sequence to a unit/structure without the shift key, sometimes it happens, sometimes one of the things happens randomly.
Example: Seige tank to unseige and move before seiging. How many shift keys should this require? One? Two? Zero? What if I want it to attack move before seiging at the target location?
Another example: Liberator unseige/seige elsewhere. This is just a pain because you have to wait long enough for it to unseige before the seige command is available. This is wasted time unless you're a pro.
Another example: Lift on command center won't work unless you first cancel scv production. WHYYY. Lift should be able to cancel the scv production.
Another example: Vikings won't execute land command until they find a place vertically over where they can land. And if it's filled before they get there, they will hunt for another place.
Another example: Seige tanks and thors won't shoot sometimes because their target acquisition system is puzzled. So annoying.
Another example: Sometimes I box-select 3 scvs and it either gives me one or ALL. And no, I don't press CTRL.
Another example: Production. If I want 3 units per building, I can't tap one time per unit i want- takes too long. I can't hold down the key - takes too long to recognize I want more than one or accidentally drains my bank with too many, killing my macro cycle. Another delay that makes multitasking a pain.
Another example: I want to target 5 banelings with my marines. Why can't I press Attack -> CTRL -> click on one baneling? This one is more nit-picky, but it would be great, for example, if I could select a group of thors and tell them to target a certain type of unit only. These are just a fraction of the things that have prevented a player of my skill from being able to Macro AND Micro together. It seems like with so much terran micro, you can't assign a task and look away and expect that there's a follow-through.
Pressing Shift also has its issues. For one, you can't start a command sequence with SHIFT key; you have to first find the specific unit/command card you're looking for, assign that command, then start the sequence. This is partly because the command card never is clear - it always has the last unit/building selected.
When I play protoss, the stress of this stuff seems to go away. I press 5 pylon locations and voila! 5 pylons are built. I spam 4 forcefields and voila! they appear. I command a storm and the nearest high templar does the job. I can warp in the exact amoutn of units I want by just spamming it.
Is anyone willing to offer an idea on how this can be addressed? I really doubt I'm the only one who gets annoyed by all these delay mechanics in the game.
@KR4_EVR good point. I do get really annoyed with this queuing stuff. Seems inconsistent to me. Also the Medivac unload while moving stuff which is only possible to shift queue when you are over unloadable terrain. I think it would be really cool if they got rid of all the delay.
Though some of the things you mentionend like starting the command sequence with shift I find slightly annoying but still coherent.
I pretty much agree with Blizzard regarding TvP. I feel that Protosses are able to expand & tech at the same time with low risk, and that puts them at an advantage. For me, the problem is that the shield battery is too cost-effective. It could cost some gas, so that a fast-expanding Protoss that uses one or two SB to protect his third finds its tech slightly delayed. 50-25 or even 50-50 could be tested. But I am afraid this would also negatively affect PvZ, especially those high-tech builds required to counter hydra-based play. Not sure how to fix this.
On April 23 2018 08:05 Xamo wrote: I pretty much agree with Blizzard regarding TvP. I feel that Protosses are able to expand & tech at the same time with low risk, and that puts them at an advantage. For me, the problem is that the shield battery is too cost-effective. It could cost some gas, so that a fast-expanding Protoss that uses one or two SB to protect his third finds its tech slightly delayed. 50-25 or even 50-50 could be tested. But I am afraid this would also negatively affect PvZ, especially those high-tech builds required to counter hydra-based play. Not sure how to fix this.
I think that it might be possible to slightly nerf the reactionary shield batteries as the dropperlords were moved to Lair.
Current SB stats: - Cost: 100/0 - Starting energy:100/100
Proposal: - Cost: 150/0 - Starting energy:100/150
That way the immiediate effect of building SB is slighlty nerfed (as you get 100 energy per 150 minerals instead of 100 energy per 100 minerals). However with time SB gather more energy and have same energy-to-minerals ratio as before.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Starcraft 3 hype
Get D1&2 Remastered first, then War3 HD, then rip off the War4 Mobile Game bandaid, *then* when my hairs are turning grey StarCraft 3 HYPE.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Everything you stated and gave as an example was discussed a bazzilion times in these threads. I was in the same boat for quite a time (simplify everything/remove overlapping mechanics/units, focus on gameplay etc etc) but the thing is it's just a matter of taste/preference. Declaring that this or that is a "bad design choice" doesnt automatically make you sound more convincingly. Design isn't something easily definable. Especially with words like bad/good/(not)fun. The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge? reluctance? and justification of all of that? People always tend to blame anyone but themselves for their mistakes. That pretty much summerize the reason behind MOBAs popularity. In Starcraft the options for that are so narrow that players jump on the first and most obvious (as they think) reason in form of some game mechanics to bash it fiercely.
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following: Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Forcefields were frustrated but people didn't forget because they "improved" their skill. Blizzard just gave Zerg the counter to that- Ravagers. As Zerg players were mostly abused with ff. It was horrible design- having map editing robots without any counter of sort, but they fixed it simple by adding an unit with spell. If they won't do that, we all stiil would have talking about broken FF.
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote: To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum)
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote: To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum)
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
Just my 2 cents
It will confuse everyone, do my units have 150 or 120 hp on this MU ? Imagine also the casting, it would feel too weird, altough balance wise it would work
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote: My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
Sure it would be easy short-term. But then what? Nerf the raven in TvZ, then you think maybe buffing hellbats in TvP which wont be neccessary in TvZ, then.... You'll end up with a completely different race.
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote: To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum)
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
Just my 2 cents
While that certainly could work and wouldn't be difficult to implement (the process of fine tuning and adjusting the numbers to get them right certainly would take a lot of time, though), it would make the game a complete mess for players/casters/viewers because they'd have to memorize up to 3 different versions of the same unit.
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote: To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum)
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
Just my 2 cents
I think this would be horrific. If you want to do race specific buffs/nerfs, do it with units used almost exclusively in one matchup. Protoss have shields which attacks could have a specified damage vs. That is an exception. Different numbers in different matchups will be really strange and unintuitive. The game will be even less beginner friendly. I am just generally against it.
If you have race specific balance, what numbers will be used in a 2v2 or a free for all? There is a game outside of 1v1.
On April 23 2018 22:26 hiroshOne wrote: Forcefields were frustrated but people didn't forget because they "improved" their skill. Blizzard just gave Zerg the counter to that- Ravagers. As Zerg players were mostly abused with ff. It was horrible design- having map editing robots without any counter of sort, but they fixed it simple by adding an unit with spell. If they won't do that, we all stiil would have talking about broken FF.
Great post that got lost in the mix. It's not like people banded together and figured out how to outplay FFs.
Aren't spore crawler +bio damage and pre-nerf WM +shield damage examples of matchup specific changes to units?
I agree that having totally different values on units based on the opponent's race (what would happen in team games btw?) would be pretty bad but there are eloquent ways to deal with matchup specific issues.
I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close.
Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
On April 25 2018 08:01 KR_4EVR wrote: Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
there was a unit like this in WoL alpha, the soul hunter (basically an adept riding a hoverboard) that gained a damage bonus for getting kills. but apparently they snowballed too hard - if you used them well, they got better, so the opponent had even less of a chance to counter.
On April 25 2018 08:01 KR_4EVR wrote: Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
I'm not sure if having faster immortals, archons, disruptors or, carriers would be good for the game.
On April 25 2018 07:58 KR_4EVR wrote: I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close.
i'd prefer mines that cost no gas, too expensive for it's current state.
On April 25 2018 07:58 KR_4EVR wrote: I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close.
i'd prefer mines that cost no gas, too expensive for it's current state.
I think giving liberators +5 damage so that when they get +1 they start to 2 shot stalkers again rather than +2 would be a good change. Because honestly the protoss will be on +3 +3 by the time your +2 Ship Weapons finishes. I also think guardian shield should be reduced or just revert marauders/widows (Back to their former damage to 1 shotting zealots)
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it. It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following: Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore. The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).
i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors. back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed. to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5). the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back. the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2. BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.
the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality? in my honest opinion the answer is no. the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile. that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor). now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell. it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.
so, what do you guys think?
Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?
(Vote): Yes. (Vote): No. (Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one. (Vote): It's fine as it is!
On April 26 2018 09:39 batatm wrote: i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors. back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed. to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5). the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back. the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2. BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.
the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality? in my honest opinion the answer is no. the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile. that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor). now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell. it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.
so, what do you guys think?
Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?
(Vote): Yes. (Vote): No. (Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one. (Vote): It's fine as it is!
Hell to the fucking no. Instant fungal was pure cancer.
SC2 still suffers most from being too unforgiving, probably cause it is too fast paced (eco/tech/battles/unit movent/attacks per second). Small advantages/disadvantages translate too radically into later stages of the game. That narrows down ways to play the game legitimately. But more importantly, it kills design and balance options for game developers in a large fashion and eventually makes it impossible to create a satisfactory balance state from where you do not have the urge to continue to develop it further alot - all the time.
You see that from how big of an impact small changes have. This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.
In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.
No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.
This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.
Thoughts on some of the other topics mentioned:
- Free units People tend to forget that terran has inverse free units due to heal. It always applies when small number of units fight against each other, which happens at a) early stages of the game (early bio attack can barely be damaged by only queens and zerglings, only surround + full kill/force retreat is possible). b) at the end of larger army fights (4 marauders + 3 marines + 8 medivacs kite down the survival of the protoss, consisting of few zealots and 2 sentries). c) at drop scenarios (3 marines between 3 mineral blocks and a building kill 10+ incoming zerglings without losing a single one).
results i) in equal army value scenario terran loses much less units than he should ii) in advantageous army value scenario (for terran) the terran units don't lose any noteworthy amount at all vs. what is thrown at it
... which both result into free units for the terran. As they become free units after the battle has taken place and not before the fight (such as broodlings or locusts), let me introduce the branding of inverse free units for that.
- Bring old units back I really wonder at this point, why this is being brought up, even by members of this board, who actually should know better. But I see that they still just try to advocat getting an edge for their race at all costs mostly in opposite of helping the game to increase in quality.
Old marauder (play marine/marauder vs no matter what and when in TvZ with only few adaptions needed, one composition all game long), old widow mines (having cheap units that take opponent 5x as much time and effort to deal with, instant game enders), old instant fungal (stupid lock down of larger army sizes to make them unmicroable and prepare them for game ending surrounds or banelings, etc.), etc. is all bullshit that the game has advanced from, luckily.
- Zergs haven't learned yet to utilize their offensive capabilites Can only come from someone who has never really played or understood zerg. The nature of this race is the game of drones vs. fighting units. Whenever you plan to attack, you usually cut drones in order to maximize army size. Why? Cause you cannot retreat. Only mutalisks, zerglings and banelings can retreat (hence it was played for years in TvZ). Stimpack, chargelots, blink stalkers, adepts, medivac boost + drop on evacuating units prevent retreating. When you attack and get overwhelmed, usually nothing survives (TvZ terran = stim back, boost out, PvZ protoss = warp back, blink back, other units can only be cought by lings, speed roaches or mutas off creep). Hence when you plan to attack, you try to maximize your chances in the fight (lets call it +ev fight) at the cost of your eco (-ev eco). The problem with that is, that you always have to pay the eco before and then have to make up for it in the fight. It is a high risk that is barely worth it ever at equal standing scenarios, hence zerg can barely be played efficently offensively when opponents are aware of your strategies (compare bly). The player who was capable of doing it efficiently is Life. He constantly traded +ev fight for -ev eco and came out +ev total after all. This is why he was so very special. In that sense you might have got a point when you meant every player should become Life, but still it is actually much more safe to play the +ev eco variant all the time and only change that when you are forced to (disadvantage or high enough advantage so that you can compensate for some losses or be able to close the game).
Things I read and support to try and work with:
- hydra too versatile (no alternative right now tho)
- ghost too rounded unit (same?)
- free conc. shells for rauders (worth a try)
Some more thoughts:
- creep speed advantage I still think it should be looked into. On creep might be little too fast, off creep might be little too slow (not zerglings probably). I am not sure of that tho, but worth looking into and testing.
- health boost for bio from medivac instead of heal Lets say bio unit gets +20hp from the beam of the medivac instead of heal. Could be really fun and shake things up a bit while removing the inverse free unit mechanic, which has much heavier weight than real free units after host nerf/figure out and broodlords being a pretty late, slow and situational unit. Getting that implemented would make it alot easier to balance around it than heal, which creates thoses stupid situations explained above which bring disorder to balance. Worth looking into imo, not sure if it can hold what it promises.
Had some more points, but I guess this is enough for one post.
This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.
In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.
No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.
This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.
That simply just isnt true, Terran's racial mechanics are all about comeback / recovering from taking damage (mules, drops, repairs, liftoffs etc). Nowadays you mainly see it just in TvZ (Maru played a macro game from being down 40 scvs for a good 10 minutes and won), because Protosses seem to roll over terrans once they get ahead, but that definitely hasnt always been the case. Protoss can also come back against terrans as well if it gets to the mid/lategame aoe units or the ground upgrades kick in.
Zergs dont have real comeback mechanics, in BW their comeback mechanics was mainly the Defiler, and not much else. Here you could make the case for Vipers against tank heavy mech, but even that doesnt really work if you re considerably behind in eco.
In PvZ protoss' comeback mechanics are turtle and max out, which worked very well, and still does, albeit very good zergs beat that with mass spore+ infestor
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it. It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following: Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore. The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).
I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge? You said "it's only your opinion". But i said the same thing in post: Having so called gimmicks in game and liking them or not is just a matter of preference. Yes, my opinion is that these mechanics are completely fine. At least they are not something hurting the gameplay. Some people dislike them, but it just means:
1) they are just trying to get an excuse for losing and will always whine about everything (and i witness dozens of examples of such behavior every day, in this regard i see no difference between HiroshiOne and a random LoL player blaming his team after gettin 0/16/3 in unranked). or/and 2) SC2 just doesnt suit them. Yes, that's life. The game wont change, its whole gameplay is based on these mechanics (and i personally see it in a positive way). And i brought up BW as an example only for this kind of people for them to try a very similar game w/o these "frustrating" gimmicks. But you reject it as well.
Well, yes, i can partly undestand you PoV. SC2 is frustrating, BW is old and has other frustrating stuff like selection limits/pathing, no sarcasm. But. What do you want from an RTS then? Perfect pathing and and interface w/o any "frustration"? No random/volatile damage bursts/"control" abilities? What it would look like? A click vs A click? Again, i'm not being sarcastic btw. I would like to be proven wrong. But for some reason, there is no such game onthe market/in development.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it. It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following: Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore. The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).
I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge? You said "it's only your opinion". But i said the same thing in post: Having so called gimmicks in game and liking them or not is just a matter of preference. Yes, my opinion is that these mechanics are completely fine. At least they are not something hurting the gameplay. Some people dislike them, but it just means:
1) they are just trying to get an excuse for losing and will always whine about everything (and i witness dozens of examples of such behavior every day, in this regard i see no difference between HiroshiOne and a random LoL player blaming his team after gettin 0/16/3 in unranked). or/and 2) SC2 just doesnt suit them. Yes, that's life. The game wont change, its whole gameplay is based on these mechanics (and i personally see it in a positive way). And i brought up BW as an example only for this kind of people for them to try a very similar game w/o these "frustrating" gimmicks. But you reject it as well.
Well, yes, i can partly undestand you PoV. SC2 is frustrating, BW is old and has other frustrating stuff like selection limits/pathing, no sarcasm. But. What do you want from an RTS then? Perfect pathing and and interface w/o any "frustration"? No random/volatile damage bursts/"control" abilities? What it would look like? A click vs A click? Again, i'm not being sarcastic btw. I would like to be proven wrong. But for some reason, there is no such game onthe market/in development.
If they were to remake Red Alert Three with a better ladder system and rebooted servers I would play that game till the cows come home.
It was easy to pick up compared to sc2 or BW was fast paced and the only highly problematic stratagies tended to be allins that were to strong. Evrey unit had an ability that let you outplay your opponent in a pinch. Valuable objectives out on the map made the fight for map control valuable in all matches not just for its scouting value but for more emediate and tangible benefits like income and good defensive locations. Air was strong but more skillful more counterable and less slow and cancerous.
On April 26 2018 09:39 batatm wrote: i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors. back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed. to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5). the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back. the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2. BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.
the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality? in my honest opinion the answer is no. the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile. that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor). now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell. it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.
so, what do you guys think?
Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?
(Vote): Yes. (Vote): No. (Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one. (Vote): It's fine as it is!
Hell to the fucking no. Instant fungal was pure cancer.
then give us the old snipe dmg+old emp radius and we are fine.
If you want to change something I would change a bit how fast is the creep disappearing when you kill the tumors.Because you scan kill the tumors and in the time say can set another tumor and the creep keep there.
Maybe I would reduce the map overview of non active tumors so you cannot see everything but the most part.
On April 26 2018 11:53 LSN wrote: SC2 still suffers most from being too unforgiving, probably cause it is too fast paced (eco/tech/battles/unit movent/attacks per second). Small advantages/disadvantages translate too radically into later stages of the game. That narrows down ways to play the game legitimately. But more importantly, it kills design and balance options for game developers in a large fashion and eventually makes it impossible to create a satisfactory balance state from where you do not have the urge to continue to develop it further alot - all the time.
You see that from how big of an impact small changes have. This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.
In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.
No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.
This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.
Thoughts on some of the other topics mentioned:
- Free units People tend to forget that terran has inverse free units due to heal. It always applies when small number of units fight against each other, which happens at a) early stages of the game (early bio attack can barely be damaged by only queens and zerglings, only surround + full kill/force retreat is possible). b) at the end of larger army fights (4 marauders + 3 marines + 8 medivacs kite down the survival of the protoss, consisting of few zealots and 2 sentries). c) at drop scenarios (3 marines between 3 mineral blocks and a building kill 10+ incoming zerglings without losing a single one).
results i) in equal army value scenario terran loses much less units than he should ii) in advantageous army value scenario (for terran) the terran units don't lose any noteworthy amount at all vs. what is thrown at it
... which both result into free units for the terran. As they become free units after the battle has taken place and not before the fight (such as broodlings or locusts), let me introduce the branding of inverse free units for that.
- Bring old units back I really wonder at this point, why this is being brought up, even by members of this board, who actually should know better. But I see that they still just try to advocat getting an edge for their race at all costs mostly in opposite of helping the game to increase in quality.
Old marauder (play marine/marauder vs no matter what and when in TvZ with only few adaptions needed, one composition all game long), old widow mines (having cheap units that take opponent 5x as much time and effort to deal with, instant game enders), old instant fungal (stupid lock down of larger army sizes to make them unmicroable and prepare them for game ending surrounds or banelings, etc.), etc. is all bullshit that the game has advanced from, luckily.
- Zergs haven't learned yet to utilize their offensive capabilites Can only come from someone who has never really played or understood zerg. The nature of this race is the game of drones vs. fighting units. Whenever you plan to attack, you usually cut drones in order to maximize army size. Why? Cause you cannot retreat. Only mutalisks, zerglings and banelings can retreat (hence it was played for years in TvZ). Stimpack, chargelots, blink stalkers, adepts, medivac boost + drop on evacuating units prevent retreating. When you attack and get overwhelmed, usually nothing survives (TvZ terran = stim back, boost out, PvZ protoss = warp back, blink back, other units can only be cought by lings, speed roaches or mutas off creep). Hence when you plan to attack, you try to maximize your chances in the fight (lets call it +ev fight) at the cost of your eco (-ev eco). The problem with that is, that you always have to pay the eco before and then have to make up for it in the fight. It is a high risk that is barely worth it ever at equal standing scenarios, hence zerg can barely be played efficently offensively when opponents are aware of your strategies (compare bly). The player who was capable of doing it efficiently is Life. He constantly traded +ev fight for -ev eco and came out +ev total after all. This is why he was so very special. In that sense you might have got a point when you meant every player should become Life, but still it is actually much more safe to play the +ev eco variant all the time and only change that when you are forced to (disadvantage or high enough advantage so that you can compensate for some losses or be able to close the game).
Things I read and support to try and work with:
- hydra too versatile (no alternative right now tho)
- ghost too rounded unit (same?)
- free conc. shells for rauders (worth a try)
Some more thoughts:
- creep speed advantage I still think it should be looked into. On creep might be little too fast, off creep might be little too slow (not zerglings probably). I am not sure of that tho, but worth looking into and testing.
- health boost for bio from medivac instead of heal Lets say bio unit gets +20hp from the beam of the medivac instead of heal. Could be really fun and shake things up a bit while removing the inverse free unit mechanic, which has much heavier weight than real free units after host nerf/figure out and broodlords being a pretty late, slow and situational unit. Getting that implemented would make it alot easier to balance around it than heal, which creates thoses stupid situations explained above which bring disorder to balance. Worth looking into imo, not sure if it can hold what it promises.
Had some more points, but I guess this is enough for one post.
Great post. I only disagree with the creep part. Zerg depends on getting good positioning before a battle, needing that vision and extra movement speed, otherwise there would be no chance vs things like tanks and storms.
This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.
In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.
No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.
This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.
That simply just isnt true, Terran's racial mechanics are all about comeback / recovering from taking damage (mules, drops, repairs, liftoffs etc). Nowadays you mainly see it just in TvZ (Maru played a macro game from being down 40 scvs for a good 10 minutes and won), because Protosses seem to roll over terrans once they get ahead, but that definitely hasnt always been the case. Protoss can also come back against terrans as well if it gets to the mid/lategame aoe units or the ground upgrades kick in.
Zergs dont have real comeback mechanics, in BW their comeback mechanics was mainly the Defiler, and not much else. Here you could make the case for Vipers against tank heavy mech, but even that doesnt really work if you re considerably behind in eco.
In PvZ protoss' comeback mechanics are turtle and max out, which worked very well, and still does, albeit very good zergs beat that with mass spore+ infestor
I'd like to add that even in BW, whenever you had an advantage, you knew you'd win the game. It didn't matter if you lost your main army, in the end you knew you would've overun him. It's just a different edge from sc2.
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote: I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields) b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike. a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it. It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following: Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore. The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).
I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge?
Not gonna read the rest. Did you even read my post ? I said it doesn't matter if I can overcome that challenge or not. If it's frustrating, then it's not fun to play. Or do I have to make myself more clear ? I DO understand the challenge. I CAN overcome the challenge even with ease. Does it still make it fun ? No.
And I'm pretty sure I'm far from being the only guy who doesn't like those things. Much like there are many frustrating thing in the game that make it random, especially the strong protoss pushes, or the end games where there are only energy units such as ravens, templars, infestors and vipers. And also some of the zerg units that are Broodlords and to a lesser extent swarmhost since they're free.
Obviously, this is only my opinion. Much like yours. While I agree for the most majority of time, when ppl don't understand, they simply choose to ignore it and whine. But don't automatically think all the people don't understand it.
Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.
On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote: Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.
Don't forget that sensor towers are peak bad design.
On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote: Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.
Don't forget that sensor towers are peak bad design.
Buff Bunker... Specifically make neosteel frames an upgrade each bunker can individually upgrade.. Why? Cause its never going to get usage otherwise and its a cool upgrade
On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote: Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.
Don't forget that sensor towers are peak bad design.
Well its not like theyre good design either :D
They aren't genius design by any means, but if there are issues in the game that need addressing, sensor towers are not any kind of priotity. They aren't something that's spammed or even used that often. The difference they make in pro games isn't that significant imo.;
Marauders could stand to see an hp buff. The current rate at which zerglings and zealots wreck them is too much. Disruptors, lurkers, and tanks are also good against them. This means they really don't have the place they're supposed to fill.
We can't just buff their armour, as this would cause problems in TvT and TvZ. An HP buff to marauder will fix TvP without ruining TvZ because hydras out-range maruaders anyways and roaches can always tank in the mid-game for the extra duration that an hp buff would provide
My personal suggestion is that Marauders benefit from the Combat Shield Upgrade proporionally: I suggest Marauders receive 25 extra health uppon CS upgrade.
IMO this would fix many things right now from the excess strength of roach/ravager allins to the issue that Terran has no real hard counter to zealots except liberators.
Pls comment and share your ideas about this suggested change. I don't want to keep the air stuff escalating; in my opinion the best way to do this is to explore hp buffs for ground units and attack strength decreases accross the board.
Which brings me to point #2, the pace of the game:
I don't know if I've just been really unlucky or what, but in the last 10 streams or so that I've watched professionals, the number of times I've seen expensive units just misrallied or given away or armies un-A-moved to death just is driving me crazy. It's not just that people are mismicroing because their opponent cleverly distracted them, either. It's like there's too much for them to do in the first place.
I'ts been the third year now since LOTV release. I have waited patiently and have, at this point, not once seen evidence that pro players have truly raised their skill to be able to handle more units faster. (Tankivac was an exception. I truly saw players raise the skill level due to that one.)
Maybe it's time to consider starting with fewer workers. Allow the game to have an interesting early-game phase which isn't all-ins.
clearly if everyone just plays like Maru Terran is balance just like during the broodlord/infestor era all you had to do as terran was either play as Mvp,taeja or Polt to make Terran Balance against zerg.
On May 01 2018 22:54 Carminedust wrote: clearly if everyone just plays like Maru Terran is balance just like during the broodlord/infestor era all you had to do as terran was either play as Mvp,taeja or Polt to make Terran Balance against zerg.
Terran can play like avilo and be GM, so whining about "I should play like maru", when mech is so easy too play and strong...
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
