|
On December 19 2009 09:44 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 04:49 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote:
Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years. ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match. In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow). Ps innovated to keep up with zergs...namely the forge expansion and the Bisu build, and all the other cute timing builds since. Zs have been countering these with tighter defense and better mechanics. There's not really any raw innovation...just much more solid play.
Right. All I'm saying is the power of the modern zerg play is based on the power of the muta stacking bug, and without it I think even with tight play and better mechanics ZvP would be a closer if not even matchup (of course, its still pretty close all things considered).
|
On December 19 2009 22:41 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 09:44 PH wrote:On December 19 2009 04:49 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote:
Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years. ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match. In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow). Ps innovated to keep up with zergs...namely the forge expansion and the Bisu build, and all the other cute timing builds since. Zs have been countering these with tighter defense and better mechanics. There's not really any raw innovation...just much more solid play. Right. All I'm saying is the power of the modern zerg play is based on the power of the muta stacking bug, and without it I think even with tight play and better mechanics ZvP would be a closer if not even matchup (of course, its still pretty close all things considered).
This might be something that Blizzard would consider partially nerfing. It's weird and not part of the original design, although it may tilt the balance too far if you take it away completely.
Another thing to consider that sounds very patch-like would be to improve Reaver AI--but not too much of course. Pros are uncomfortable with Reavers because they are so damn unreliable. Reavers used to be better (too good), long long ago. A middle ground would be nice.
|
Unfortunately, taking away muta stacking would make modern ZvT insanely bad for Zerg. Its way more important in that matchup than it is in ZvP, so actually protoss wouldn't even benefit as much as terrans would. On top of that its an exciting mechanic for viewers.
I can get behind fixing Reaver AI. It really should be fixed. But its pretty much not gonna happen. Of course, amusingly fixing Reaver AI probably fucks over Terrans a bit in PvT, so even that has side consequences. That's the hard part, boosting PvZ without altering anything else. The best answer is really probably to just un-nerf psi storm.
|
You are 100% onto something there. Changing one matchup almost always effects another. Changes that effect a single matchup are gold for this reason, and if there are ones in the past, we should consider reversing them (if they are to the side we need) or increasing them (if they are to the side we are reducing). The Psi storm nerf is one such example--reverse it, good idea.
Some other past balance changes that I recall were primarily for this matchup:
-shifting zealot shields/hp around, to effect how they worked vs hydras (was done in the past)
-increased hydra build time (could reverse it partially, shouldn't break zvt at all)
-photon cannon improved (I kind of hate photons being even stronger so I wouldn't like this angle)
I don't think un-nerfing storm would change very much; like people said, people are just better at dodging storm these days. What if High Templar got a little speed boost?
What do you think of any of these options?
|
I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
|
This is still going on? lol i hope all you protoss crybabies realize that zvt is the most imba match up ever. pvz doesn't hold a candle to that.
As for your balance fixes- they are all pointless. Doing anything will make PvT even more of a cakewalk for protoss. I don't understand why players of your caliber complain about imbalance, when at your level of play it makes no difference.
Remember when savior was crushing all of the protoss players? Remember when protoss didn't stand a chance? Where no one was going to beat him? Then suddenly a huge shift in favor of protoss? I am just waiting for the next big thing to come around. Low rank players should spend more time practicing than discussing balance issues. Leave that to the pros and the coaches.
Talking about the muta bug is a complete waste of time. Don't you find it odd that the only protoss lynchpin in your entire game is templar? perhaps you should re evaluate the way you play, not what zerg has. You think you have it bad when a hydra (75/25) can out DPS anything you have? Imagine the zerg point of view playing terran- Marine(50) has a higher dps than anything the zerg can throw at it. Coupled with medics- it's crazy how cost effective that shit is. Yet some how zerg finds a way through superior tech to win some zvt.
Perhaps you should think of the same?
Lastly- I find it rather obtuse that people still discredit the DA in effectiveness. We have seen it's use multiple times, and frankly it's extremely effective. Talking about reaver AI and all other balance issues are a complete waste.
PS- Don't forget that stork and bisu are still ripping the scene up. And you have yet to see anything of storks new idea. As i said before, leave it to the pros.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 20 2009 15:51 stormtemplar wrote:
I like how you talk about how we are cry babies, then whine about how imba zvt is. Also in terms of the marine, my question is, do the protoss have a practical spell that nullifies hydra damage the way dark swarm nullifies rines?
stasis your stuff and it wont get damaged ez
or maelstrom the hydras
|
|
|
You can't really address imbalance through such a narrow scope as one spell in this case.
|
Ok, I'm only doing this because the last 20 pages or so of statistics really pissed me off.
Standard Deviation, (straight off wikipedia): In simple terms, it shows how much variation there is from the "average" (mean). It may be thought of as the average difference of the scores from the mean of distribution, how far they are away from the mean. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, whereas high standard deviation indicates that the data are spread out over a large range of values.
The formula to calculate Standard Deviation:
\sigma(r) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^N (x_i - r)^2}.
where i=term #, N=number of terms, r=mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
The Standard Deviation calculates the difference each term is from the average, (hence (x_i - r)^2), divides it by the number of terms - 1, and takes the square root. In the case where Standard Deviation is zero, each term will be exactly the same as the mean, and each (x_i - r)^2 will equal zero. In this case, we're taking each term, either a 1 or a 0, and subtracting our average, say .6 or so, from it. Of course we're going to get huge numbers. You calculated the sum of each term's difference from .6, but none of the terms were .6! Each term produces a ridiculous STDEV, giving you your imbalanced result, and undermining the rest of your work.
|
On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Terran bunkers need to be 125 minerals, and take 25% longer to build.
All this balance talk is just useless. Blizzard hasn't changed anything in 7+ years and there is no reason to change anything today, especially when SC2 is coming out.
|
On December 21 2009 03:48 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum. Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous.
I just meant I like the sound of #1 and #2, as to what impact on the game you think these changes would have, you need to put that into your post.
|
On December 21 2009 04:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 03:48 old times sake wrote:On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum. Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous. I just meant I like the sound of #1 and #2, as to what impact on the game you think these changes would have, you need to put that into your post.
I've made a thread @ http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=108290 Let me know if you would like more explanation than that. I made it for you so let me know what you think. :D
|
I think people are too biased.
I am a protoss player, and never I felt PvZ was imbalanced.
All this talk must emerge from players who get frustrated after losing to some all-in bs. Happens to all of you. Twice I have lost to a zerg who went 5-6p, and after successfully defending, I lost the game due to some unpredictable next move. There is an element of luck in starcraft, but regardless, I could have won both games if I had played better.
You lose a game badly, odds are the other player is just more experienced than you are.
PvZ is not much harder than TvP.
If you re losing too much, practice more. Simple and easy.
|
After watching Pure vs ZerO I felt that the matchup isn't imbalanced in favor of the Zerg.
|
On December 21 2009 10:28 Leath wrote:
I think people are too biased.
I am a protoss player, and never I felt PvZ was imbalanced.
All this talk must emerge from players who get frustrated after losing to some all-in bs. Happens to all of you. Twice I have lost to a zerg who went 5-6p, and after successfully defending, I lost the game due to some unpredictable next move. There is an element of luck in starcraft, but regardless, I could have won both games if I had played better.
You lose a game badly, odds are the other player is just more experienced than you are.
PvZ is not much harder than TvP.
If you re losing too much, practice more. Simple and easy.
You guys don't realize how many people you're insulting when you accuse them of being bad Protoss players mad because they lost games. 46 pages of people making other arguments, and you are pissing all over them saying they are just mad noobs. It's always easy to dismiss an opinion you disagree with by attacking the motives of that person. It's a cop-out. It shouldn't be allowed, except in extreme circumstances where the situation is so unusual that the motives really come into play, for instance if someone hates gay people and the best explanation is that they are a closeted homosexual. But in a case like this, people are talking about SC and progaming, they give arguments and evidence, and you throw that back in their face basically saying they are whiney noobs who fool themselves because they hate losing. It shouldn't be allowed. It's poor form and it just causes more and more flamewars while ignoring the actual substance. No where have I even said I think PvZ is imba. I'm not a Protoss player either. So what's your theory now? Maybe my gay lover is a Protoss player! Yeah, that must be it...
Why don't you find some of the better posts in this 46 page monster who support the idea that pro P needs some help against Z to make a better game, and respond to them instead? Respond to the strongest form of the argument, not the weakest. Not a straw man...
|
Do these people even play starcraft?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
