|
On January 10 2023 02:20 tigera6 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE You gotta do a better research than that, among all the premiere tournament played on that map pool, Pride of Altaris has been played a whopping 45 times in 5 tournaments (TSL 8, Last Chance, ST1, DH Valencia Regional, ST1 and half of Code S1). Why? because its so bad that its been vetoed to shit by most Terran and even Protoss players against Zerg. And during IEM, Zerg has 100% winrate on that map, the only Terran picked that map was Maru against Serral and he got smashed like a bug. So yeah, please dont say that map is "fine", its making me throw up.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously comment on the lack of available data, then cite an even smaller sample size. There were 5 ZvP/T games played on pride at IEM, where zerg won 4 of them.
The matches were:
Skillous > Elazer
Rogue > Neeb
Solar > Neeb
Reynor > Zoun
Serral > Maru
You have more substantial evidence to state that neeb is underpowered on pride than to say that pride is broken for zerg based on your own argument
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE
I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about".
Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game.
Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train.
Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there?
Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem?
If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
|
On January 09 2023 22:39 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
... ... ... I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it.
On January 09 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
... ... ... I feel like you're primarily annoyed with the fact that micro and macro both matter in SC2, and that you wish only micro mattered. Also, the more comeback potential a game has, the less the gameplay up until that moment matters, so there definitely needs to be a balance where gaining a lead means something. I also don't see your Maru vs. herO hypothetical as a fair comparison. They're both playing the entire game, and if you've created a scenario where one player has played so much better that they're definitionally in a basically-unlosable situation, then yes, tautologically they pretty much deserve to win unless something very unlikely happens. And even with that being said, we've seen players go full-foreigner and throw games before, or other players claw victory from the jaws of defeat. Playing poorly in the early game shouldn't be rewarded with having an equal chance of victory in the late game, unless they made up for the deficit somehow. And every competitive, skill-based game (that isn't a literal coinflip) gets to a point where "player X wins from this position 90% of the time", and that's a good thing because one player deserves that lead from playing well (or from their opponent playing poorly).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
|
On January 10 2023 02:31 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 02:20 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE You gotta do a better research than that, among all the premiere tournament played on that map pool, Pride of Altaris has been played a whopping 45 times in 5 tournaments (TSL 8, Last Chance, ST1, DH Valencia Regional, ST1 and half of Code S1). Why? because its so bad that its been vetoed to shit by most Terran and even Protoss players against Zerg. And during IEM, Zerg has 100% winrate on that map, the only Terran picked that map was Maru against Serral and he got smashed like a bug. So yeah, please dont say that map is "fine", its making me throw up. I don't understand how you can simultaneously comment on the lack of available data, then cite an even smaller sample size. There were 5 ZvP/T games played on pride at IEM, where zerg won 4 of them. The matches were: Skillous > Elazer Rogue > Neeb Solar > Neeb Reynor > Zoun Serral > Maru You have more substantial evidence to state that neeb is underpowered on pride than to say that pride is broken for zerg based on your own argument
But those lack of data was for a reason, because veto exist outside of Bo7. I didnt say you have not enough data, I implied that you got the WRONG set data. You have to include the condition in which the stats was collected, and how much weight they carry individually.
|
On January 10 2023 02:35 [Phantom] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about". Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game. Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train. Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there? Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem? If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
If you think your whining is going to change anything, please go on.
There's a certain point where severe crying mixed with whataboutism, mixing imagination with facts, etc is just pathetic.
|
On January 10 2023 02:01 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 01:39 [Phantom] wrote:On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HbZ4584.png) Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. the nerfs are a joke. disrupttor nerf change from 1.35 to 1.37? and then 0.07 speed reduction that's not noticeable? and a BUFF to the already barely noticeable viper nerf? get out of here with that bs This is insulting. The balance council is treating us like idiots with these changes. I don't respect any of them which at best are clueless and at worst malicious. This is ridiculous and shameless, You guys at the balance council are shameless. Hey don't worry about it. Just rely on luck to overcome any balance issue you have on ladder!
None of us cares about our own ladder experience, we all suck and our winrate will always be 50/50.
What I care about is having to watch tournaments where Terran and Protoss players are just there for show and the tournament winner gers solely decided by who wins the ZvZs.
|
On January 10 2023 02:35 [Phantom] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about". Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game. Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train. Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there? Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem? If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
I mean, he's probably right that the average TLer has low game knowledge, however when the majority of the community, the non-Zerg pros and even some Zerg pros are all in agreement that the patch and the maps are Zerg favored there's probably some truth to it.
|
Does cyclone lock on now prioritize interceptors over carriers?
Not like mech would be viable in tvp anyways but still ...
|
On January 10 2023 07:34 CingCoCo wrote:
Does cyclone lock on now prioritize interceptors over carriers?
Not like mech would be viable in tvp anyways but still ...
Units will target the Carrier over the interceptors. This is a good thing for most automated attacks, the only issue is that you can't target an interceptor. So if you actually want to target Interceptors with say Widow Mines, or Liberators, well you can't. You just gotta position yourself where the Carrier is not in range..
|
This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
|
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote:
This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
You can't seriously think that anyone actually believes in a Zerg conspiracy right? You realize that's a meme right? Right?
|
Ah yes, how does that famous image macro go... "Jokes on them, I was only pretending to be an irrational balance whiner"?
|
On January 10 2023 11:39 Turbovolver wrote:
Ah yes, how does that famous image macro go... "Jokes on them, I was only pretending to be an irrational balance whiner"?
Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one.
|
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote:
This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
Complaining that the changes seem Zerg-biased, meanwhile, is just a reasonable response to seeing Zerg, by and large, getting tweaks or even buffs (particularly in lategame), even after years of winning a disproportionate number of tournaments, even as the strongest units other races (Ghosts, Disruptors) are getting nerfed significantly. You can argue that recent tweaks have changed this, but given that only came after a lot of complaints I'm not sure what you're point is.
|
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote:
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
.4 seconds was the time for burrowed lurkers to react at the moment ghost snipe starts. For starters I would argue it should just be impossible for a lurker that's still burrowed the moment snipe starts to escape. But since the balance council has apparently decided anything besides broodlords should have escape potential we'll ignore that.
The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
|
On January 10 2023 12:05 Athenau wrote:
Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one.
My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe.
On January 10 2023 12:08 QOGQOG wrote:
It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
We literally had calls in-thread for those making the decisions to be dragged out to answer to the crowd of terran-icon-posters. Or like, who the hell is laughing at Phantom's posts that we might call them jokes?
On January 10 2023 12:35 JJH777 wrote:
The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
Right, thank you for a reasoned post on the topic. As I said I only watch GSL, and on previous patch I have seen the recent TvZ trends of games that go late being either the Terran pulls off a boring-as-fuck Ghost turtle, or the Zerg just inevitably wins with 60% of the map covered in creep. The matchup needs/needed work in my opinion, and now at least both creep and Ghosts have been nerfed. Creep apparently not enough. I don't feel equipped to make that judgment myself, but if creep got a harder nerf, I would not be particularly surprised or at all bothered. Snipe needed more counterplay, though. If other tools in the Terran arsenal need to be buffed for TvZ lategame, I'm for it, though I don't have an amazing idea of what that might look like without compromising balance at other phases of the game.
What I am rallying against now is that here on Page 25, there's still been desperately little discussion of this critical issue, beyond emotional yelling of "don't touch ghosts!". Then we moved onto complaining about ultralisks and hydralisks, not because those units are overpowered now (I don't think I've seen a single person even claim that), but just because "it's not fair that underperforming zerg units got buffed while my ghosts got nerfed!". It's child logic. Counting up "wins" versus "losses" devoid of context to try to demand more because "but it's unfair!". Literally my children do this. I surely did this as a child. We all probably did.
But now we can be better.
|
I think people would complain less if Ghost nerf would be accompanied by some similarly significant late-game Z nerf. So it changes the late-game TvZ and doesn't just nerf one side that often relied on being able to win late-game with 50%+ chance. Because mid-game is arguably Zerg-favored right now.
But instead Z got better Ultras (where now-nerfed Ghost was the best answer) and brood lords for late game, AND buffed Hydras for mid-game. Creep nerf is not significant enough when Zerg have 10 queens and can restore creep easily.
So there's a good chance that instead of shaking up stale late-game TvZ - which would be good, of course - this patch will introduce even more boring "kill Zerg in first 7-8 minutes or die" era of all-ins in every game.
|
On January 10 2023 14:40 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:05 Athenau wrote:
Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one. My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe. Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:08 QOGQOG wrote:
It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
We literally had calls in-thread for those making the decisions to be dragged out to answer to the crowd of terran-icon-posters. Or like, who the hell is laughing at Phantom's posts that we might call them jokes? Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:35 JJH777 wrote:
The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
Right, thank you for a reasoned post on the topic. As I said I only watch GSL, and on previous patch I have seen the recent TvZ trends of games that go late being either the Terran pulls off a boring-as-fuck Ghost turtle, or the Zerg just inevitably wins with 60% of the map covered in creep. The matchup needs/needed work in my opinion, and now at least both creep and Ghosts have been nerfed. Creep apparently not enough. I don't feel equipped to make that judgment myself, but if creep got a harder nerf, I would not be particularly surprised or at all bothered. Snipe needed more counterplay, though. If other tools in the Terran arsenal need to be buffed for TvZ lategame, I'm for it, though I don't have an amazing idea of what that might look like without compromising balance at other phases of the game. What I am rallying against now is that here on Page 25, there's still been desperately little discussion of this critical issue, beyond emotional yelling of "don't touch ghosts!". Then we moved onto complaining about ultralisks and hydralisks, not because those units are overpowered now (I don't think I've seen a single person even claim that), but just because "it's not fair that underperforming zerg units got buffed while my ghosts got nerfed!". It's child logic. Counting up "wins" versus "losses" devoid of context to try to demand more because "but it's unfair!". Literally my children do this. I surely did this as a child. We all probably did. But now we can be better.
I don't get your point. You agree that nerfing Ghosts without compensation is bad for balance. Well, nerfing Ghosts while buffing Zergs mid-lategame units is even worse. Not sure what that has to do with child logic to say 1+1 =2 (1 buff for Zerg + 1 nerf for terran = increase of 2 in terms of balance in favor of Zerg).
The other changes don't really matter for TvZ.
Yes if Terran gets nerfed and Zerg buffed people will demand at least one of the changes to be reverted to ensure a fair game OR if they don't want to do that implement other changes
|
On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players.
A lot of people don't know this but .... Lee Harvey Oswald was a Zerg player. 
I love this aspect of the Starcraft franchise. It is hilarious and It's always been around. Other players claim the balance team is Protoss favoured and others say Terran favoured.
To fit into this narrative... on these boards for 12 years I've claimed to be a Terran player. My BNet account indicates I've played 10,000 games as Terran and only 1,000 as Zerg ... but its all just a cover. I'm really a Zerg player. I just played 10,000 games as Terran to throw everyone off.
I think we should give Zerglings a health boost up to 120 HP so they can go toe-to-toe with Zealots. If this change is not made it proves the balance team is anti-Zerg.
+ Show Spoiler +the line above is sarcasm.
|
On January 10 2023 02:58 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
... ... ... I feel like you're primarily annoyed with the fact that micro and macro both matter in SC2, and that you wish only micro mattered. Also, the more comeback potential a game has, the less the gameplay up until that moment matters, so there definitely needs to be a balance where gaining a lead means something. I also don't see your Maru vs. herO hypothetical as a fair comparison. They're both playing the entire game, and if you've created a scenario where one player has played so much better that they're definitionally in a basically-unlosable situation, then yes, tautologically they pretty much deserve to win unless something very unlikely happens. And even with that being said, we've seen players go full-foreigner and throw games before, or other players claw victory from the jaws of defeat. Playing poorly in the early game shouldn't be rewarded with having an equal chance of victory in the late game, unless they made up for the deficit somehow. And every competitive, skill-based game (that isn't a literal coinflip) gets to a point where "player X wins from this position 90% of the time", and that's a good thing because one player deserves that lead from playing well (or from their opponent playing poorly). I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2. I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
It's unfortunate that Moon couldn't handle the game speed, but SC2 is different from WC3. The reason why I felt your example was so dismissive of macro was that your hypothetical scenario had someone being down 60 supply and in a nearly unwinnable situation, and you wishing that such a position didn't really matter. When someone "still loses from this position 90% of the time", that isn't necessarily a bad thing; maybe that statistic is deserved. If individual micro is what's really important to you, then it sounds like WC3 or MOBA games are preferable, but even those games have situations that can eventually become so lopsided that one team loses 90% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
