|
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content.
You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical.
Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. |
On February 04 2011 17:56 Zips wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote:
My judgement on the show:
B for the concept
F- for effort
It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. Their most legitimate complaint, which I agree with, is the preeminent role of the colossus. That may or may not be due to balance issues; but in this case, balance issues don't matter. The grievance is that colossus' play too central a role in nearly every protoss army composition. It shouldn't be THE staple unit (other than stalker) that protoss cranks out in order to win. Even if it's not imbalanced, maybe protoss should still be re-tuned, in order to add viable options to army composition. As they said many times, it may simply be a matter of figuring out how to counter it efficiently -- meaning its efficacy may be embellished, at the moment. If that's the case, then eventually we'll see an organic switch to more diverse army compositions. However, if it is imbalanced, we'll continue to see more and more colossus play (which would be a real shame, because protoss is more than just stalker/colossus).
Why does anyone think that because a unit is a "core unit" it must be imbalanced? That kind of reasoning is beyond me. Terrans more or less always build Marines. Does that mean the Marine is imbalanced? Or the Zergling? Or the Stalker?
On February 04 2011 18:08 SlapMySalami wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote:
When you call a show "IMBALANCED" (in all caps) you are suggesting that
a) there is such a thing as "balance" at all and
b) that there is some gross unfairness to yell and complain about.
The whole first sentence "... the show about IMbalance" shows what the intention behind it is: to whine and yell and rage about supposedly bad things in SC2. It is NOT about seeking ways to make the game more fair for each matchup!
Why isnt it a show for those with overinflated egos? Arent those the ones who cry "IMBALANCE" first when they cant seem to win against certain things?
After this the two hosts go on and give a ton of examples - which may or may not be relevant because they add a lot of conditionals in there ("which may be imbalanced") - to "define imbalance", but with NO WORD are they mentioning maps at all. No word about rush distances on Steppes of War and Scrap Station and those do affect the game balance.
FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases.
Does anyone think you can talk about balance and pick just one unit from a whole army? Sure the Colossus is strong, BUT it isnt strong without support, so talking about "Colossus" is a stupid idea. The example of the "beta Roach" was different, because that unit was the only thing the Zerg needed to produce at the time to win easily.
In the example "ZvP" the guys arent talking about the Colossus but rather "whining" that the "Corruptor isnt as strong as the Viking".
FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players).
Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army?
Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps.
FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it.
My judgement on the show:
B for the concept
F- for effort
It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything.
We also need a good definition for "balance" and which elements of the game figure into it. Artosis and IdrA have only talked about one small aspect and that usually creates whining. + Show Spoiler +FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. The impact of maps on balance is later brought up. You even address this in your post. Might as well edit #1 out of your post.
In case you didnt read my post very well: #1 is about their DEFINITION of imbalance and that is the first few minutes of the "show". They mention a lot of examples but never ever the maps (like they later do).
On February 04 2011 18:08 SlapMySalami wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players).
Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army?
I don't know, IS that really true? "that seems highly unlikely" is not really a good base for your #2. Have you not noticed that if the game goes past any kind of blink stalker or 4 gate or stargate play the game -almost- ALWAYS ends up with Colossi? Have you seen carriers? Maybe you'll see templars played once in a while. The only other option would be templars and they are used mainly against mutas. Also how would you propose the zergs kill the opponents' economy? Please enlighten us to the replays/VODs you've seen recently of consistent econ harass. Maybe you can hope to live long enough with some mutas but that's about it. + Show Spoiler +Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps.
FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. Their argument about the unit/map imbalance is that it is basically impossible to have the Colossus as a balanced unit in its current state unless you have a HUGE arc around the Protoss army. Even if you flank in a 2 sided attack force fields can still block the back half.
That is sooo untrue and you should listen to what Artosis says past the 15 minute mark:
"... but a lot of that depends on the map, which is something we have to take into consideration for the Colossus, because on some maps the Colossus is not gonna be as good against Zerg as on other maps. For instance, this style that we were just talking about - you know you own about four bases and you try to engage the Protoss as far up as you can to take out as much as you can so that when your army is dead and you're remaxing out he cant just walk in and do that killer damage. ...."
Good strategy on Shakuras Plateau, bad strategy on Steppes of War. Wow what insight.
So basically Artosis himself says that the Colossus is NOT IMBALANCED ... because an imbalanced unit (like a 1 food, 2 armor Roach) is imbalanced ALL THE TIME regardless of the map. This is why the show is a total failure, because it totally misses the obvious target to blame for "imbalance" ... and that is the maps and their size.
|
On February 04 2011 22:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 21:19 DND_Enkil wrote:On February 04 2011 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
People need to stop using GSL to talk about balance and race repartition.
Korea is a country with a deep esport history: there is a lot of terran and zerg players because GSL is definitly taking heritage from SC1 where protoss was an underused and underdevelopped race for so long.
For the moment GSL is too linked with this legacy so the race repartition is biased.
Look at tournament world wide: zerg is clearly behind, with protoss and terran always taking the first spot. The last TSLOpen are a good exemple of that. I will start off by saying i agree that Zerg is struggling right now and that something needs to be done about them, i just dont agree on collossus being the problem. If you want to use tha last TSL open as an example of collosus being overpowered there is a pretty big problem, in R32 and forward no P beat Z... Lalush was taken out by Mvr (T). dde was taken out by allaboutyou (T). zionman was taken out by SjoW (T). Morrow was taken out by TLO (R). Ciara was also taken out by TLO (R). I was not trying to say that P was OP against Z, I was only answering to everyone saying that in GSL protoss was not doing better than Z. No matter what people say, worldwide, protoss are doing quite well except for GSL and the korean scene (except MC). Anyway, if you are saying that the last TSL Open with 3 protoss and 1 terran cannot be used to make assumption about protoss current level ? I think not. I don't think colossus are imbalanced, just impossible to counter with ground units because of their range + force field.
I feel that both Protoss and Terran are doing very well right now, with Zerg struggling to consistently win matches. It just felt like you wanted to tie this fact in with the idea that the problem for zerg players right now is Collossus, i realise now that your statement had less to do with the vide in OP and more to do with general strenght/wins by zerg.
|
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units.
|
On February 04 2011 22:48 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 22:43 WhiteDog wrote:On February 04 2011 21:19 DND_Enkil wrote:On February 04 2011 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
People need to stop using GSL to talk about balance and race repartition.
Korea is a country with a deep esport history: there is a lot of terran and zerg players because GSL is definitly taking heritage from SC1 where protoss was an underused and underdevelopped race for so long.
For the moment GSL is too linked with this legacy so the race repartition is biased.
Look at tournament world wide: zerg is clearly behind, with protoss and terran always taking the first spot. The last TSLOpen are a good exemple of that. I will start off by saying i agree that Zerg is struggling right now and that something needs to be done about them, i just dont agree on collossus being the problem. If you want to use tha last TSL open as an example of collosus being overpowered there is a pretty big problem, in R32 and forward no P beat Z... Lalush was taken out by Mvr (T). dde was taken out by allaboutyou (T). zionman was taken out by SjoW (T). Morrow was taken out by TLO (R). Ciara was also taken out by TLO (R). I was not trying to say that P was OP against Z, I was only answering to everyone saying that in GSL protoss was not doing better than Z. No matter what people say, worldwide, protoss are doing quite well except for GSL and the korean scene (except MC). Anyway, if you are saying that the last TSL Open with 3 protoss and 1 terran cannot be used to make assumption about protoss current level ? I think not. I don't think colossus are imbalanced, just impossible to counter with ground units because of their range + force field. I feel that both Protoss and Terran are doing very well right now, with Zerg struggling to consistently win matches. It just felt like you wanted to tie this fact in with the idea that the problem for zerg players right now is Collossus, i realise now that your statement had less to do with the vide in OP and more to do with general strenght/wins by zerg.
I have never thought the game is imbalanced, just that zerg lack something. In my humble opinion (2600 zerg master) the Lair/Hive system, with a spire that takes a life time to build, make SC2 zerg very SC1ish (loong and difficult way to switch tech and to build high tech units). I feel that I never have the time to muta harass and build a good enough roach/hydra army to counter any push: I am forced to go for muta ling or roach hydra and so I can't delay any colossus rush with muta harass.
On the other side, SC2 protoss and SC2 terran, with mule and chronoboost, can build an economy really fast and are not bound to wait for tech unlike zerg: they can almost expand, build units and having colossus at 12 minute (thor at 8 minutes anyone ?), while it take at least 18 minute to build ultras and broodlord.
We lack something in T2 that can delay colossi or fight against them in equal ground (up corruptor against massive units). To fix that, we stay in Lair and continue building around roach/hydra/corruptor army, playing very agressiv and obviously it's very hard to counter end game tech units (colossi) with a mid game army.
To sum up my point of view: Colossi are strong, but they are maybe too strong in ZvP because of Zerg lack of easy and fast enough counter.
|
On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units.
So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP?
Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly).
|
On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly).
Because ZvP is the MU where it's the most uncertain whether it's imbalanced. They had to finally conclude it was a byproduct of maps and that it was likely imbalanced because of the limitations on map design. That's different than in PvP where it's simply just too ridiculously good always.
|
On February 04 2011 23:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly). Because ZvP is the MU where it's the most uncertain whether it's imbalanced. They had to finally conclude it was a byproduct of maps and that it was likely imbalanced because of the limitations on map design. That's different than in PvP where it's simply just too ridiculously good always.
ROFL ... even in PvP the MAP SIZE - which is easy to increase - can affect balance. In case you hadnt noticed: Killing the enemy army doesnt matter; killing all the enemies base lets you win. The Colossus isnt exactly the most mobile unit and even on Shakuras Plateau it is easy to launch a sneak attack upon the enemies base while he is advancing on your base. If you can cripple him that way (maybe you see him use his warp in in the middle and then warp in stuff at his base) he is unlikely to recover as fast as you, because his economy is already dead while yours only *might* die in that assault which is coming. Terrain features and a defensive unit mix can help you fight "more with less". So basically the same argument they used for ZvP is true for PvP.
|
Good Stuff. Keep them coming Artosis. 
|
Tho I understand the mod's positions I can understand my fellow users positions too ...
IdrA and specially Artosis sometimes overextend their comments for things that aren't exactly true or turns out to not be true after one strategy or event ...
That being said the first episode was pretty informative tho a shorter and more illustrated (actually showig gameplay) would be even more welcome, still pretty good stuff keep they comming...
|
Good Stuff. Keep them coming Artosis.
indeed - keep the good work up - looking forward for more episodes ... about those lamos :&
haters gonna hate Good Stuff. Keep them coming Artosis.
|
On February 04 2011 23:09 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 23:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly). Because ZvP is the MU where it's the most uncertain whether it's imbalanced. They had to finally conclude it was a byproduct of maps and that it was likely imbalanced because of the limitations on map design. That's different than in PvP where it's simply just too ridiculously good always. ROFL ... even in PvP the MAP SIZE - which is easy to increase - can affect balance. In case you hadnt noticed: Killing the enemy army doesnt matter; killing all the enemies base lets you win. The Colossus isnt exactly the most mobile unit and even on Shakuras Plateau it is easy to launch a sneak attack upon the enemies base while he is advancing on your base. If you can cripple him that way (maybe you see him use his warp in in the middle and then warp in stuff at his base) he is unlikely to recover as fast as you, because his economy is already dead while yours only *might* die in that assault which is coming. Terrain features and a defensive unit mix can help you fight "more with less". So basically the same argument they used for ZvP is true for PvP.
PvP is the most unaffected by map size... Gateway units can be warped and Colossi are pretty mobile, don't consider their mouvement speed only, because you are forgetting they can go up and down cliff.
|
On February 04 2011 23:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 23:09 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 23:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly). Because ZvP is the MU where it's the most uncertain whether it's imbalanced. They had to finally conclude it was a byproduct of maps and that it was likely imbalanced because of the limitations on map design. That's different than in PvP where it's simply just too ridiculously good always. ROFL ... even in PvP the MAP SIZE - which is easy to increase - can affect balance. In case you hadnt noticed: Killing the enemy army doesnt matter; killing all the enemies base lets you win. The Colossus isnt exactly the most mobile unit and even on Shakuras Plateau it is easy to launch a sneak attack upon the enemies base while he is advancing on your base. If you can cripple him that way (maybe you see him use his warp in in the middle and then warp in stuff at his base) he is unlikely to recover as fast as you, because his economy is already dead while yours only *might* die in that assault which is coming. Terrain features and a defensive unit mix can help you fight "more with less". So basically the same argument they used for ZvP is true for PvP. PvP is the most unaffected by map size... Gateway units can be warped and Colossi are pretty mobile, don't consider their mouvement speed only, because you are forgetting they can go up and down cliff.
They have a pretty low walking speed and if you have to walk a long distance with them you arrive MUCH later than Stalkers.
The movement speed is part of the reason for much "unfairness", because the map size does not allow the *supposedly mobile* Zerg army to run around an enemy to kill his base or to outflank him. The maps are small enough so that even the relatively slow units like Colossi and Siege Tanks can be back in time to defend. Thus building static defenses is made unnecessary except to prevent Banshee harrass or drops.
|
So the colossus is OK in TvP because of vikings, but for the zerg players it's too hard to balance corrupter vs ground. I don't get it.
|
On February 04 2011 23:23 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 23:20 WhiteDog wrote:On February 04 2011 23:09 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 23:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly). Because ZvP is the MU where it's the most uncertain whether it's imbalanced. They had to finally conclude it was a byproduct of maps and that it was likely imbalanced because of the limitations on map design. That's different than in PvP where it's simply just too ridiculously good always. ROFL ... even in PvP the MAP SIZE - which is easy to increase - can affect balance. In case you hadnt noticed: Killing the enemy army doesnt matter; killing all the enemies base lets you win. The Colossus isnt exactly the most mobile unit and even on Shakuras Plateau it is easy to launch a sneak attack upon the enemies base while he is advancing on your base. If you can cripple him that way (maybe you see him use his warp in in the middle and then warp in stuff at his base) he is unlikely to recover as fast as you, because his economy is already dead while yours only *might* die in that assault which is coming. Terrain features and a defensive unit mix can help you fight "more with less". So basically the same argument they used for ZvP is true for PvP. PvP is the most unaffected by map size... Gateway units can be warped and Colossi are pretty mobile, don't consider their mouvement speed only, because you are forgetting they can go up and down cliff. They have a pretty low walking speed and if you have to walk a long distance with them you arrive MUCH later than Stalkers.
"They can walk up and down cliff".
On February 04 2011 23:24 Thrombozyt wrote:
So the colossus is OK in TvP because of vikings, but for the zerg players it's too hard to balance corrupter vs ground. I don't get it.
Vikings have better range, better attack, cost less gaz, and terran's ground army can tank long enough in order for viking to kill all colossi, thanks to of medivac.
|
On February 04 2011 16:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed. *snip* Really? Heavy baneling? I just find that odd considering banelings cost a lot if you are using it against a non-light army (takes 8 banelings, or 400/100 to kill off 1-3 stalkers), just doesnt seem like a cost effective way to handle the situation. Did you analyze cost of each army or did you just make a bunch of different units and throw them at eachother?
The costs were semi-close in most armies. The super heavy baneling army was way less minerals but double the gas. I'm not sure you can get that many banelings, but if you can OL drop banes and flank with lings and/or roaches I think it has potential.
|
I don't think it's controversial to say that gateway units lose out to MM and early zerg armies as soon as you get past early low numbers, which is definitely contributing to both the need to push for collossus and how powerful it needs to be (to adequately make up for the 'core' army disadvantage).
What do you guys think about nerfing the collossus and buffing gateway units? I like the idea in principle, but I fear the effective 4-gate buff would be a problem. Plus it makes the races less unique.
|
On February 04 2011 23:26 WhiteDog wrote:
"They can walk up and down cliff".
And that helps them how when they are on the right side of Shakuras Plateau attacking and their home base gets attacked and they have to get back to the left side?
Colossus: 2.25
Stalker: 2.953
Zealot: 2.25 (2.75 with Charge upgrade)
So the Stalker is a good 30% faster than the Colossus ... even without blinking to get back faster. So far this slow speed doesnt matter due to map size, but we will see in the next GSL.
|
On February 04 2011 22:59 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. Like the pointed out, PvT there is a fine balance. PvZ it is much harder to deal with.
Also, they never said that was imbalanced for certain (Though Idra certainly feels that way) but they feel it may be too strong. Like they said, there is a difference between broken and extremely powerful units. So their main point was PvP? Is that why they spend most of the time talking about ZvP? Having one "core unit" in a race does NOT make that unit imbalanced simply because a unit like the Colossus never walks alone (or it dies quickly).
You seriously need you need to calm down... Come on, this is one of most interesting and brilliant show about the "state of the game" (imbalance in this one), and you find ways to say it's worthless?
And yes, if the core unit of your army is above tier 2 and it's so crucial to have in order to be able to stay in the game, it might be imbalanced. It's not all about the maps (on bigger maps, collossi might even be stronger because you don't need as much sentries early on). In PvT, they aren't imbalanced because they act like the game is supposed to be played: you produce collossi to counter the heavy bio ball, so they produce vikings to get your collossi; then you can either get blink stalkers, or transition into HTs;and they will be eventually disabled by ghosts, who will be killed be collossi, etc, etc., etc.
This kind of system creates a wheel of adaptation so the better army composition and micro can win, and not just a big ball of the same-thing everytime. It's the problem with collossi in PvP: No matter what ground unit the enemy had, collossi will beat it. Even zealots, who do better against collossi than stalkers, are bad against them. Then, the protoss don't have powerful flying anti-air unit. Like the corruptors of the zerg, the void rays do a lot of damage, but they don't have enough range to do hit-n-run style like vikings. This is a big flaw in both PvZ in PvP that MAYBE will be adressed with bigger maps, but yopu never know.
This is why Artosis clearly said that he's NOT SURE about the state of the collossi at the moment. He never said they were NOT OP, but only that we need to wait and see how the metagame develops around it. It's easy to quote someone by only taking the half of what he said and forget the rest.
|
On February 04 2011 23:31 Clerseri wrote:
I don't think it's controversial to say that gateway units lose out to MM and early zerg armies as soon as you get past early low numbers, which is definitely contributing to both the need to push for collossus and how powerful it needs to be (to adequately make up for the 'core' army disadvantage).
What do you guys think about nerfing the collossus and buffing gateway units? I like the idea in principle, but I fear the effective 4-gate buff would be a problem. Plus it makes the races less unique.
LoL, seriously... templar, sentry are enough alone to take on MMM and zerg army. Not to mention mother ship and archons. Why buffing gateway units... ridiculous.
|
On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game.
What's wrong with that? It's very similar to the reaver in BW, usually when the armies clash, the guy with 2 reavers is going to win if the opponent only has 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
