|
Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way. |
The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become.
From 3 damage levels to 2.
Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4).
Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8).
Armour from 1 to 0.
More costly.
Speed upgrade removed.
Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added.
All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual.
They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no...
I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
|
On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote:The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become. From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added. All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual. They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no... I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran.
It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates.
|
protoss was good in low level-------------->blizzard nerf protoss, and fuck with pro gamers.
protoss was never good in the highest level of play, people were just bad back then.
|
|
|
On September 10 2011 05:46 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote:The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become. From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added. All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual. They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no... I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated. They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran. It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates.
They weren't that terrible and easy to control that you could just charge up and win. They forced the enemy to get marines (and often Vikings as support) or hydralisks. You can't nerf the damage too much (8 powered up damage against unarmored) because it's such a huge beam. So they still did a lot of damage against the counters, too. But not enough in my opinion. If that would have been a problem, they could have made the void ray more vulnerable to them.
For instance, let them do tons of damage but they don't have energy left to power shields during level 3. Problem solved. Strong advantages need to be mixed with strong disadvantages.
I (random) liked VRs right from the start. They are not more gimicky as utalisks owning whole probe lines in Brood War in my opinion.
|
On September 10 2011 07:23 Perscienter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 05:46 Toadvine wrote:On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote:The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become. From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added. All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual. They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no... I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated. They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran. It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates. They weren't that terrible and easy to control that you could just charge up and win. They forced the enemy to get marines (and often Vikings as support) or hydralisks. You can't nerf the damage too much (8 powered up damage against unarmored) because it's such a huge beam. So they still did a lot of damage against the counters, too. But not enough in my opinion. If that would have been a problem, they could have made the void ray more vulnerable to them. For instance, let them do tons of damage but they don't have energy left to power shields during level 3. Problem solved. Strong advantages need to be mixed with strong disadvantages. I (random) liked VRs right from the start. They are not more gimicky as utalisks owning whole probe lines in Brood War in my opinion.
Mutalisk were much more versatile though. You could harass with them, could also use them to snipe key units, they were good for denying expos, and in general provided a ton of map control because of their mobility. They were a bit too good in general, which is why BW had to add so many anti-mutalisk measures. But they ended up a staple Zerg unit in practically every matchup. Though unlike SC2, you couldn't simply mass them for the whole game, cause every race had tech that dealt with them super efficiently.
Void Rays, on the other hand, are just big flying cannons. Just like Banshees, they move slowly, do a lot of damage, and aren't useful for much else. Though they're a bit more useful than Scouts, so there's that.
|
Couple things I have to say.
Infestors / Ghosts - How come the infestor has neropathogen glands which allows it to have fungal right when it pops? Also same thing with Ghosts , but how come Ht lost it's ability to have erKardarian Amulet. I know warping in 2 ht to stop a drop, but lets think about it.. 2 Maurders(200minerals 50gas)3 Marines(150 minerals) vs 2 Ht (100minerals 300gas) (I didn't include the medivac bnecause most medivacs drops aren't usually full MP therefor 1 feedback wont kill it). Now if terrans drop fails no economical damage has been delt to the protoss but the terran looses 350 minerals and 50 gas. I want to point out Mules. Mules make up for that loss since it isn't very gas heavy but protoss will more than definetly loose those 2 ht, he cant get that back with mules , but what the protoss did do was prevent his economy from being destroyed or delayed which is HIS advantage. Mules on the other hand is the terrans to if the drop fails although late game it doesn't have really any affect to whether the terran looses anything and the drop itself because if the drop does work he has done damage that can rightfully be a changing point in the game.. I seriously think drops should be looked at more because the amount of economical damage delt is phenominal. And to be honest protoss has NOTHING to stop a drop, besides blink stalkers , but we have to realize stalkers are to fragile\ expensive to Marine and maurders it's not even worth the exchange in other words cost efficent. Drops should be yes an element of surprise but shouldn't be able to fataly end a game, but rather be used as an advantage to allow the terran to win at a l;ittle bit more of a lead, that's why im saying kardarian amulet or some sort of thing to give Ht atleast more energy is needed. Protoss mobility is shit and can't even get around to defend 3 bases at once, and push up his front. The amount of exploiting i've seen happen to progameing protosses.
And blizzard sorry warp prisim will never be used. maybe if it's 100 minerals and 100 gas? Becuase it seems protoss is the race that has more gas than others and terran is the army with the most minerals and zerg is the one with the most even amount although when it makes certain units its stresses very badly.
|
On September 09 2011 12:27 Brian333 wrote:
I wrote this a day before this article:
An explanation for the state of Protoss
I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it.
The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1.
I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy.
Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies.
Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage.
Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest.
Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes.
We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses.
With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs.
So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point.
So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth.
And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with.
To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide.
Very good analysis. Agree with a large portion of this. -- I'd also say that possibly the shield upgrade (which is almost never purchased) could have a bonus caveat of "and reduces the effectiveness of Feedback/EMP by 20/40/60% (L1/L2/L3)". A situational upgrade, particularly vs. Terran if one wishes to go more Archon heavy.
|
NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM so much protoss tears taste so good bwahahha.
This has been happening in sc2 all the time players fall off their pedestal once the metagame changes and they adapt and become better. We seen this in Nestea, MVP, MC... Games changing faster than blizzard can balance.
|
Great coverage TL - loving the essay-styled investigations!
|
Sorry if I can't articulate this well but I was laughing my ass off reading this article, mostly because I kept remembering the post iem coverage article of the last iem:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 25 2010 22:50 heyoka wrote:
 MorroW 3 > 1 IdrA ( Vod) ( Replays) Reapers, reapers, and more reapers. The Grand Finals, the entire IEM tournament, and TvZ itself is saturated with them, and with good cause – they give Terrans the most effective opening versus Zerg, plain and simple. One of the best TvZers in the world and not about to underestimate Idra anytime soon, Morrow skillfully executed his mass reaper opening three times in the Grand Finals, successfully twice, and each time transitioned into both an economically sound and map controlling mid-game that refused to give Idra any advantage. After being caught off-guard in game 1, Idra defended against Morrow’s mass reapers insanely well throughout the rest of the series, managing to barely hold them off while still building an economy. However, no matter how well he survived the early game Morrow would transition into a standard army and keep up pressure so consistently that there was little Idra could do to take a lead in any of the matches. Morrow took his third victory of the series and 13th of the tournament ingeniously, using, what Idra could see as the same reaper opening of the previous games. But this time, knowing exactly how Idra would respond, Morrow relied on the potential threat of reapers to trick his Zerg opponent and went straight for a marauder/hellion push. With a train of scvs shielding his damage dealing units Morrow easily chewed through Idra's few zerglings and marched into the natural, ending the game. Morrow's reaper control in the Grand Finals set a new standard for terran players across the world, and with solid transitions, macro, and decision making he won the first StarCraft 2 IEM Global Challenge with the composure and tact of a true champion. I have a feeling he'll be invited to the next one.
What wasn't as funny to me was the author taking away as much from puma's win as is physically possible. Directly calling him the worse sc2 player and using term's like "terran imba-ball" is more than a bit childish; I appreciate that your very obvious favorite lost, but venting your rage in such a way is a disservice to puma, and a disservice to people who actually read these news posts and form opinions based on them.
|
just saw polt vz puzzle...
+ Show Spoiler +
Puzzle pushes, polt has hardly any units left but his reinforcement slowly push puzzle back
Polt pushes and the opposite happened, puzzle send waves of units into the mmm - meatgrinder
and game 1 was everyones favorite 111
|
How is this article flying around with this much bias and qqing? What the hell? Very unprofessional
|
i love that mods can post balance whine
|
On September 11 2011 10:35 SpunXtain wrote:
How is this article flying around with this much bias and qqing? What the hell? Very unprofessional
lol... the qqing and balance whine is pretty explicit, but don;'t be too vocal about it, you'll get a temp banned
|
Losing to PuMa in the finals does NOT mean MC is slumping. That word is used too carelessly. PuMa is a fucking boss, there is no shame in losing to him.
|
On September 11 2011 10:34 -y0shi- wrote:just saw polt vz puzzle... + Show Spoiler +
Puzzle pushes, polt has hardly any units left but his reinforcement slowly push puzzle back
Polt pushes and the opposite happened, puzzle send waves of units into the mmm - meatgrinder
and game 1 was everyones favorite 111
Well, at the moment Protosses should probably use Idra's rule in PvT - "Never attack unless you're all-ining.". If you fail to kill the Terran with an attack, you usually die to the counter.
|
I don't think the "Protoss isnt' just innovating." argument is fair at all
The problem is coming up with a build that gives us even midgame with Z and T. Innovating with Warp Prisms, Motherships, Carriers and the like don't solve this problem, as they are mid and late game tactics.
All of our FE builds have been figured out. The 3gt sentry expo has also been figured out. There are responses to these builds that leave the P so far behind in the midgame they just play catch-up and hope the opposing races wont punish them at the times they take huge risks to even the odds.
What comes to innovating around this subject - think of how close the 3gt sentry expo is dying to strong roach/ling pressure already, and then try to come up with a solution that cuts something out of it for faster nexus. There are players who simply just go gate-nexus-gate-gate and hope Z doesn't mass lings in the early game to deny it, but it's not safe.
OGSMC tried to go gate-stargate-nexus and some variants of 3gate-star-nexus but that had it's own problems and it's already died out.
1/1/1 gives Protoss these conditions to innovate around
1. You need to be one base ahead to just solve the insane cost efficiency of this timing push by throwing money at it.
2. You need to get a relatively early robo against the probability of a cloak, and to make sure it really is a 1/1/1, and also to know the exact variant.
3. The build needs enough gas for sentries to deflect some 7minute pushes (like on the video below), enough gas and minerals for stalkers to deflect the banshees at relevant timings, enough gas and minerals for a robo, enough gas and minerals for Colossi, bay and the range upgrade and somehow still produce units linearly from the gateways to keep the supply count somehow even. It's just too much.
Every time P comes up with something that could work, it dies to something else that is either a component of 1/1/1 or a transition from it, or the build looks vulnerable enough for T to just opt to go for something else entirely.
Good example of this is this SaSE's PvT game against the new 2/1/1 @ Korean GM ladder
http://www.twitch.tv/hellosase/b/294753081 (Starts at 35:00 forward)
|
If there was ever a game to be used as an argument in favor of nerfing MULEs, it's that one.
1. Protoss does a very risky expand build, throwing his Nexus down at 4:30.
2. Banshees kill around 5 probes and a Stalker.
3. At the 12:30 mark, the 1 base Terran is 10 supply ahead of the Protoss.
Really, in what world does this make sense?
|
Thanks for your effort in writing up such a nice unbiased post Tree.hugger! Though I must say its pretty depressing to read at the same time haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Xxio/IEM/Finalists.jpg)
