There are plenty of free resources to improve chess play, and learn how to play piano, and learn some tips for how to train better in a gym scenario. But that doesn't invalidate having a teacher who can tailor their influx of information to better suit your learning style and rate of improvement.
People learn differently. Some work better learning alone, some work better learning as part of a group, and some benefit far more from having someone to give instant feedback when they improve (a teacher) than trying to recognise that feedback for themselves.
and like I said it's not something I understand.
i have lived a life where money is so tight for me that I can't grasp why you would pay someone to teach you how to play a game rather than just learn yourself. That has literally never been an option for me.
and i will be honest I think paying money for that is kind of ridiculous.
What do you think about people who pay for personal trainers? Or martial arts lessons? Or piano lessons? Or chess lessons?
You're paying for the time of someone with more experience and/or a stronger grasp of fundamentals and execution in a field you want to improve or excel in.
dude relax iowa isnt a nerd he doesnt play videogames he just complains about balance in one on a videogaming forum.
There are plenty of free resources you can utilize to become better at this game. I guess it's just funny to me that someone is willing to pay money to train rather than just recognize the flaws in their play themselves. Thats part of the fun of this game for me.
itp dhal reveals that he cannot grasp the concept of irony
You can also learn how to play chess, be fit, learn martial arts, and learn piano without a one-on-one trainer.
It's just way, way, way, way, way better with one.
"This applies both to high templars and collosi." nowhere does it say that its only a problem if both high templar and collosi are being used at the same time, you dolt. The statement is saying that A) high templar splash is too strong and collosi splash is to strong. it is not saying that 'Collosi splash combined with high templar splash is too strong' even though that is true.
please take a course in basic reasoning
the quote from Blizzard says neither of these things. It does not specifically mention either of the two options being individually overpowered, nor does it mention the combination of the two being overpowered.
You cannot draw a conclusion 100% either way from that statement, but given that they said Protoss splash damage is too strong, that does lean you, logically, towards assuming that it is both units together, as well as the fact that they only nerfed the templar to start with. You are once again taking quotes and attempting to pull meaning from them to suit what you want, whereas I am simply pointing out to you your fallacies in such.
For example trying to claim that warpgates + chronoboost are overpowered because of a claim that Blizzard said, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, "protoss can dump MINERALS too easily with warpgate and chronoboost lategame". Which they fixed with a zealot build time change. And as tux pointed out, there aren't any other mineral dumps on the warpgate than zealots, so there is no other thing that they could have been referring to.
Again: No, Blizzard has not said that. What Kim said in the 1.1 sitrep was that it was too easy to a) proxy gate zealots early and b) dump minerals late by spamming out zealots late-game, so they increased the build time in 1.1 to address both problems. That does not equal a problem with the concept of warp gates.
We have two key changes in mind for the zealot: the build time is being increased from 33 to 38 seconds, and the warpgate cooldown is being increased from 23 to 28 seconds. Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. We feel the window players have to scout for and fend off this rush is too small. We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost.
I find the language of
"We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost."
to be pretty ambiguous.
but sure you can have that victory
anyway
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi. We felt that if we were to nerf both of these units protoss may end up too weak in the late game. Therefore, we decided to adjust high templars first and see how the game plays out. As we’ve mentioned many times before, we feel it’s safer to take small steps in making balance changes than making drastic changes to an entire race."
so collosus are getting a nerf. the collosus is slightly imba according to blizzard
And this goes back to what I said about idiots like you taking preliminary discussions from Blizzard and turning them into absolute "this is what is changing" statements.
Nowhere in that statement does it say "Colossus are OP we are gonna nerf them".
What they say is "we feel lategame splash damage for Protoss is slightly overpowered". What this means, and it was true, is that the combination of warp-in instant storm high templars with a colossus ball were too strong. Since they don't want to nerf both and risk making Protoss too weak in the lategame, they changed the templar first. This has, like it or not, admit it or not, had the effect of making Protoss colossi balls pretty much the be-all end-all. In most games, eventually a Protoss would phase out Colossus from their army and stick to exclusively templar once they had safely transitioned to that tech on multiple mining bases with abundant gas. Now, however, the Colossi tech path is still stronger, so there is no reason to transition.
Personally I would have preferred they nerf the Colossus and leave storm/amulet upgrades the way they were, but its not up to me.
"This applies both to high templars and collosi." nowhere does it say that its only a problem if both high templar and collosi are being used at the same time, you dolt. The statement is saying that A) high templar splash is too strong and collosi splash is to strong. it is not saying that 'Collosi splash combined with high templar splash is too strong' even though that is true.
please take a course in basic reasoning
Dude, nowhere does it say that both are too powerful separately. The only thing it says is that they felt Protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered.
You read way more into that then was there too, you just read it in a different way and then hilariously touted your apparently amazing reasoning capabilities.
This is why you don't gg early. Your opponent may be much more terrible than you think.
(As an aside, I've been called a hacker twice in like 6 games. That's good, right?)
(Also, I broke my no-4gating rule, but I think you'll appreciate the extenuating circumstances)
I enjoyed this replay Apparently he "did the math in his head"
That said, however, I do wish you'd have built that cannon one spot lower so that it formed part of a complete wall, or at least put another pylon there to block it. You had plenty of time to do so, and probes are never going to keep zerglings back for long.
"This applies both to high templars and collosi." nowhere does it say that its only a problem if both high templar and collosi are being used at the same time, you dolt. The statement is saying that A) high templar splash is too strong and collosi splash is to strong. it is not saying that 'Collosi splash combined with high templar splash is too strong' even though that is true.
please take a course in basic reasoning
the quote from Blizzard says neither of these things. It does not specifically mention either of the two options being individually overpowered, nor does it mention the combination of the two being overpowered.
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi."
You cannot draw a conclusion 100% either way from that statement, but given that they said Protoss splash damage is too strong, that does lean you, logically, towards assuming that it is both units together, as well as the fact that they only nerfed the templar to start with. You are once again taking quotes and attempting to pull meaning from them to suit what you want, whereas I am simply pointing out to you your fallacies in such.
For example trying to claim that warpgates + chronoboost are overpowered because of a claim that Blizzard said, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, "protoss can dump MINERALS too easily with warpgate and chronoboost lategame". Which they fixed with a zealot build time change. And as tux pointed out, there aren't any other mineral dumps on the warpgate than zealots, so there is no other thing that they could have been referring to.
Yes you can't be 100%
of course not. but you can make inferences think about what they seem to be implying from that statement.
how are there not any other mineral dumps than zealots? stalkers are only 50 gas, not a large cost in the late game.
plus we have david kim trying out different warpgate ideas etc etc etc
I feel that this indicates there will be a change to warpgates in the future.
"This applies both to high templars and collosi." nowhere does it say that its only a problem if both high templar and collosi are being used at the same time, you dolt. The statement is saying that A) high templar splash is too strong and collosi splash is to strong. it is not saying that 'Collosi splash combined with high templar splash is too strong' even though that is true.
please take a course in basic reasoning
the quote from Blizzard says neither of these things. It does not specifically mention either of the two options being individually overpowered, nor does it mention the combination of the two being overpowered.
"We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi."
You cannot draw a conclusion 100% either way from that statement, but given that they said Protoss splash damage is too strong, that does lean you, logically, towards assuming that it is both units together, as well as the fact that they only nerfed the templar to start with. You are once again taking quotes and attempting to pull meaning from them to suit what you want, whereas I am simply pointing out to you your fallacies in such.
For example trying to claim that warpgates + chronoboost are overpowered because of a claim that Blizzard said, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, "protoss can dump MINERALS too easily with warpgate and chronoboost lategame". Which they fixed with a zealot build time change. And as tux pointed out, there aren't any other mineral dumps on the warpgate than zealots, so there is no other thing that they could have been referring to.
Yes you can't be 100%
of course not. but you can make inferences think about what they seem to be implying from that statement.
how are there not any other mineral dumps than zealots? stalkers are only 50 gas, not a large cost in the late game.
plus we have david kim trying out different warpgate ideas etc etc etc
I feel that this indicates there will be a change to warpgates in the future.
because the whole idea of dumping minerals is that you have a bunch of minerals you aren't using because you're using your gas on something else.
dumping gas along with minerals defeats the purpose of a mineral dump.
This is why you don't gg early. Your opponent may be much more terrible than you think.
(As an aside, I've been called a hacker twice in like 6 games. That's good, right?)
(Also, I broke my no-4gating rule, but I think you'll appreciate the extenuating circumstances)
I enjoyed this replay Apparently he "did the math in his head"
That said, however, I do wish you'd have built that cannon one spot lower so that it formed part of a complete wall, or at least put another pylon there to block it. You had plenty of time to do so, and probes are never going to keep zerglings back for long.
I did like how you checked the gold base thoughl.
Yeah, I wasn't sure of the timing, so I left the spot open for my Zealot. Plus I didn't want the Cannon to get destroyed while building. I was going to drop another Pylon with that Probe, then cancel it when the Zealot popped (like I've seen HuK do), but I fucked up and the Probe died.
I only bring this up b/c you posted this in the middle of colossi/HT balance discussion. While I will agree the game is (apparently)pretty much balanced at this point, I would argue the more important question is "is it fun?" For both players and spectators. I figure that everyone agrees that colossi are the most boring tech choice in the game, but due to balance reasons, protoss is getting pigeonholed into going that route everytime (this is certainly arguable as protoss players surely have other doors to open, but the current metagame supports this view). Either colossus needs to be knocked down to the perceived value of the other tech choices or the other tech choices need to have their perceived value bumped up to that of the colossus if variety is desired. Obviously this makes for a huge balance headache.
Obviously this is all based on the current metagame. Maybe a huge shift in the metagame will make the other tech choices as desirable or even more desirable that going colossus.
I just don't see the same excitement in games of SC2 that was readily apparent in BW. And I'm afraid that strategies may stagnate, which will only make it worse.
EDIT: I fear that everyone is too concerned over whether the game is perfectly balance (and accept that as good enough), when I feel that, what good is a perfectly balanced game if it isn't exciting to watch/fun to play?
I only bring this up b/c you posted this in the middle of colossi/HT balance discussion. While I will agree the game is (apparently)pretty much balanced at this point, I would argue the more important question is "is it fun?" For both players and spectators. I figure that everyone agrees that colossi are the most boring tech choice in the game, but due to balance reasons, protoss is getting pigeonholed into going that route everytime (this is certainly arguable as protoss players surely have other doors to open, but the current metagame supports this view). Either colossus needs to be knocked down to the perceived value of the other tech choices or the other tech choices need to have their perceived value bumped up to that of the colossus if variety is desired. Obviously this makes for a huge balance headache.
Obviously this is all based on the current metagame. Maybe a huge shift in the metagame will make the other tech choices as desirable or even more desirable that going colossus.
I just don't see the same excitement in games of SC2 that was readily apparent in BW. And I'm afraid that strategies may stagnate, which will only make it worse.
this is definitely my primary concern as well. i think terran is the most dynamic of all 3 races. they have so many nifty toys, such broad tech options, and a bevy of strats that are fun to watch. this is why I support making gateway armies more powerful at the cost of colossi because I think it'd lead to more interesting matches. imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
I only bring this up b/c you posted this in the middle of colossi/HT balance discussion. While I will agree the game is (apparently)pretty much balanced at this point, I would argue the more important question is "is it fun?" For both players and spectators. I figure that everyone agrees that colossi are the most boring tech choice in the game, but due to balance reasons, protoss is getting pigeonholed into going that route everytime (this is certainly arguable as protoss players surely have other doors to open, but the current metagame supports this view). Either colossus needs to be knocked down to the perceived value of the other tech choices or the other tech choices need to have their perceived value bumped up to that of the colossus if variety is desired. Obviously this makes for a huge balance headache.
Obviously this is all based on the current metagame. Maybe a huge shift in the metagame will make the other tech choices as desirable or even more desirable that going colossus.
I just don't see the same excitement in games of SC2 that was readily apparent in BW. And I'm afraid that strategies may stagnate, which will only make it worse.
this is definitely my primary concern as well. i think terran is the most dynamic of all 3 races. they have so many nifty toys, such broad tech options, and a bevy of strats that are fun to watch. this is why I support making gateway armies more powerful at the cost of colossi because I think it'd lead to more interesting matches. imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
And despite their broad tech options, the prevalence of colossi centric builds in PvT, is limiting the terran to going viking. There has certainly been some variation (a recent mass thor game comes to mind), but vikings are still probably the most effective option to deal with colossi. Having one race stagnate can potentially cause the other races to stagnate in the matchup as well, which makes for some very boring games.
Obviously I am being a bit pessimistic...but I feel my concerns have at least some merit.
The last 10 pages of this thread were brought to you by TeamLiquid.net. And curse you TotalBiscuit, for jinxing us and saying we were "sensible". Or maybe he planned this all along...
I only bring this up b/c you posted this in the middle of colossi/HT balance discussion. While I will agree the game is (apparently)pretty much balanced at this point, I would argue the more important question is "is it fun?" For both players and spectators. I figure that everyone agrees that colossi are the most boring tech choice in the game, but due to balance reasons, protoss is getting pigeonholed into going that route everytime (this is certainly arguable as protoss players surely have other doors to open, but the current metagame supports this view). Either colossus needs to be knocked down to the perceived value of the other tech choices or the other tech choices need to have their perceived value bumped up to that of the colossus if variety is desired. Obviously this makes for a huge balance headache.
Obviously this is all based on the current metagame. Maybe a huge shift in the metagame will make the other tech choices as desirable or even more desirable that going colossus.
I just don't see the same excitement in games of SC2 that was readily apparent in BW. And I'm afraid that strategies may stagnate, which will only make it worse.
this is definitely my primary concern as well. i think terran is the most dynamic of all 3 races. they have so many nifty toys, such broad tech options, and a bevy of strats that are fun to watch. this is why I support making gateway armies more powerful at the cost of colossi because I think it'd lead to more interesting matches. imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
I think a problem with protoss is that stargate tech is so situational.
Phoenixes are great units, don't get me wrong. But they are very situational. They are great at harass, but only good as part of your army if your opponent has a very specific unit mix that is useful to have the phoenixes against, such as a couple banshees, or a couple tanks that you can lift.
Void rays are also great units, but they also suffer from a similar problem. As part of an army, they are only good in numbers greater than 4-5, and they also die very quickly when focused, especially by a cheap and easily massed unit like marines, which Protoss needs AOE units to effectively deal with large numbers of. Besides that, they're essentially harass units.
Carriers are great, but take a long time to get to and are not as powerful once on the field as a Colossus would be in a similar situation.
Gateway units themselves are good, but they need support units to really shine, and the problem with the current metagame (which may not be reflective of the overall state of the game but is a current true fact right now) is that the only tech path that provides truly effective support units (key fact - support units as part of an army, not merely harass units) is the robotics tech path.
If there was a change made to make Protoss capable of dealing cost-efficiently with masses of hydralisks or marines using a tech path besides Colossus, I think we'd see a lot more stargate play. As it is, any plan involving stargate tech vs Terran or Zerg has to, at some point, be transitioning into Colossus to deal with the inevitable hydralisks or marines.
Blinks stalkers are already balling. You can deny Z his third just by continually harassing him
Although if more players learned that the response to your opponent going for expensive flashy tech is to go fucking kill him, then that harass might get into trouble
imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
Are we not aware of 4 gate and 6 gate pushes? Those are extremely prevalent as is. You don't even need colossi. Mind you this is from a zerg viewpoint.
what good is a perfectly balanced game if it isn't exciting to watch/fun to play?
This is an entirely separate issue. If you're really concerned about this I imagine you were crestfallen when the patch notes announced a change to the templar (fun/dynamic spellcaster that's interesting to watch) rather than the colossus?
While I support the idea that the game should be, when possible, designed to be more fun to watch I also think that theorycrafting the massive amounts of balance changes required to effectively force viability for certain units or playstyles in the metagame is both silly and a waste of time. The metagame continues to change on its own and Blizzard will do what Blizzard does, whether you think that X changes to warpgate tech and Y changes to mothership rushes would be super rad or not.
JAEF on
0
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
Are we not aware of 4 gate and 6 gate pushes? Those are extremely prevalent as is. You don't even need colossi. Mind you this is from a zerg viewpoint.
Well you would have to do more than just make gateway units stronger and colossi weaker, for the exact reasons you pointed out.
Delaying warpgates would probably be enough to balance 4gate with stronger gateway units.
Nerfing FF (I don't know how, but in some way) would probably be enough to balance 6 gate pushes.
But I feel I'm delving too far into a hornet's nest so I'm not going to keep suggesting "potential balance changes." My main point is, I don't care what changes I just want something about protoss to change (either a metagame shift which would be ideal, or through balance changes, which would be ugly an impractical).
Blizzard's method for balancing Colossus/HT seems the opposite of their intention. Taking out amulet was a massive change that has badly disrupted the meta-game towards Colossi only. I have no idea how they didn't see that the change would cause that. Nerfing the amulet to 15 energy, and nerfing Colossus damage a little bit would have been the slight change they wanted.
Buffing Gateway units seems like a really bad idea to me though. 4 and 6-gate pushes are already terrifying enough at pretty much all levels of play. I do, however, like the change (I think Dhal mentioned) where they'd increase WG cooldowns and reduce build-times for units built from a Gateway after WG research is complete.
It'd be cool to be plopped in a weak bracket and get to the second qualifier where you could at least get a few games versus some good players. Heck maybe even you get super randomly to the top 32 and get a nice match with a pro.
redraptor on
0
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
what good is a perfectly balanced game if it isn't exciting to watch/fun to play?
This is an entirely separate issue. If you're really concerned about this I imagine you were crestfallen when the patch notes announced a change to the templar (fun/dynamic spellcaster that's interesting to watch) rather than the colossus?
While I support the idea that the game should be, when possible, designed to be more fun to watch I also think that theorycrafting the massive amounts of balance changes required to effectively force viability for certain units or playstyles in the metagame is both silly and a waste of time. The metagame continues to change on its own and Blizzard will do what Blizzard does, whether you think that X changes to warpgate tech and Y changes to mothership rushes would be super rad or not.
Oh I agree with this 100%. Trying to change that much at this point is entirely impractical, which is why I don't like discussing the topic. But I'm just feeling a bit pessimistic about the current state of the matchups. And I do think that even if the game is perfectly balanced in it's current state, if the meta game doesn't evolve, I don't know if the scene will survive. And that's my fundamental worry, does the current balance state support an evolution in the metagame? Obviously it's impossible to answer that. And we still have two expansion packs to go through.
And again, I realize I'm am being very pessimistic. It's just kinda how I feel right now.
EDIT: and in answer to your question, yes I was very crestfallen at the HT nerf. I would much rather have seen a colossus nerf. And I say this as both a terran and protoss player.
Maratastik on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
It just seems early to say that any race is limited in a matchup.
not saying changes couldn't bring benefits if that's what they decide to do, but I can't see passing a verdict right now for certain tech being too obvious of a choice or too powerful over other tech.
I don't think protoss want to go colossus every game, even pro players, not just because it's boring but because it's obvious. I imagine some variability will come to the matchup in more than the creative one base plays we've seen on both sides. if terran make mech work, that would obviously influence protoss by force. if toss make any given thing work, that will change how terran plays. not enough time has passed for me to say this won't happen.
at least, that's how I understand the evolution of these matchups. something that takes time.
maybe a certain breed of mech play is OP tvp. maybe there is a way to integrate stargate besides phoenix vs. vikings. dunno.
Blizzard's method for balancing Colossus/HT seems the opposite of their intention. Taking out amulet was a massive change that has badly disrupted the meta-game towards Colossi only. I have no idea how they didn't see that the change would cause that. Nerfing the amulet to 15 energy, and nerfing Colossus damage a little bit would have been the slight change they wanted.
Buffing Gateway units seems like a really bad idea to me though. 4 and 6-gate pushes are already terrifying enough at pretty much all levels of play. I do, however, like the change (I think Dhal mentioned) where they'd increase WG cooldowns and reduce build-times for units built from a Gateway after WG research is complete.
yes, this is the one I proposed.
Basically current build times, lets take a zealot for example, is 38 seconds out of a gateway, and 28 seconds (+5 warpin time) out of a warp gate.
If we keep the base 38 seconds for normal gateways, leave warp gate tech where it is.
Then once you have researched warp gate, the build time for a zealot out of a gateway is shorter. For arguments sake, we could say its the same as warpgate time, so 28+5 = 33 seconds. This is post-warp gate research. Maybe that number might need to be tweaked up or down.
The build time for a zealot out of a warp gate after that would be 38 + 5 seconds warpin, so it takes a LOT longer to build units out of a warp gate than out of a gateway, with the advantage of having those units where you want them instantly, while simultaneously not introducing the problems of proxy gates being too strong, which is what would happen if you just flat out reduced gateway times.
This would then introduce an interesting dynamic for Protoss, whether to make all your gates into warpgates and go full offensive, whether to play a defensive style with some warpgates for warping in vs harass and some gateways to balance it out so that you can still get some good fast production, or whether to go full macro style and rely on static defenses and army positioning, and keep everything in gateway form.
But I'm just feeling a bit pessimistic about the current state of the matchups. And I do think that even if the game is perfectly balanced in it's current state, if the meta game doesn't evolve, I don't know if the scene will survive.
Luckily Blizzard has a rather significant financial investment in the success of SC2 as an esports platform and they employee people whose jobs are to make SC2 balanced and interesting.
They pay people to worry about it so that you don't have to.
what good is a perfectly balanced game if it isn't exciting to watch/fun to play?
This is an entirely separate issue. If you're really concerned about this I imagine you were crestfallen when the patch notes announced a change to the templar (fun/dynamic spellcaster that's interesting to watch) rather than the colossus?
While I support the idea that the game should be, when possible, designed to be more fun to watch I also think that theorycrafting the massive amounts of balance changes required to effectively force viability for certain units or playstyles in the metagame is both silly and a waste of time. The metagame continues to change on its own and Blizzard will do what Blizzard does, whether you think that X changes to warpgate tech and Y changes to mothership rushes would be super rad or not.
Oh I agree with this 100%. Trying to change that much at this point is entirely impractical, which is why I don't like discussing the topic. But I'm just feeling a bit pessimistic about the current state of the matchups. And I do think that even if the game is perfectly balanced in it's current state, if the meta game doesn't evolve, I don't know if the scene will survive. And that's my fundamental worry, does the current balance state support an evolution in the metagame? Obviously it's impossible to answer that. And we still have two expansion packs to go through.
And again, I realize I'm am being very pessimistic. It's just kinda how I feel right now.
EDIT: and in answer to your question, yes I was very crestfallen at the HT nerf. I would much rather have seen a colossus nerf. And I say this as both a terran and protoss player.
Don't forget that we're getting two expansions. The scene is exciting enough at the moment, with enough variation in builds to sustain itself for 2-3 years until we get new units out, in addition to balance changes. I think concerns about SC2's ability to entertain indefinitely is a little premature.
But I'm just feeling a bit pessimistic about the current state of the matchups. And I do think that even if the game is perfectly balanced in it's current state, if the meta game doesn't evolve, I don't know if the scene will survive.
Luckily Blizzard has a rather significant financial investment in the success of SC2 as an esports platform and they employee people whose jobs are to make SC2 balanced and interesting.
They pay people to worry about it so that you don't have to.
Oh lord, I if I had been drinking anything it would be all over my monitor right now. Thanks for that.
Blizzard's method for balancing Colossus/HT seems the opposite of their intention. Taking out amulet was a massive change that has badly disrupted the meta-game towards Colossi only. I have no idea how they didn't see that the change would cause that. Nerfing the amulet to 15 energy, and nerfing Colossus damage a little bit would have been the slight change they wanted.
Buffing Gateway units seems like a really bad idea to me though. 4 and 6-gate pushes are already terrifying enough at pretty much all levels of play. I do, however, like the change (I think Dhal mentioned) where they'd increase WG cooldowns and reduce build-times for units built from a Gateway after WG research is complete.
yes, this is the one I proposed.
Basically current build times, lets take a zealot for example, is 38 seconds out of a gateway, and 28 seconds (+5 warpin time) out of a warp gate.
If we keep the base 38 seconds for normal gateways, leave warp gate tech where it is.
Then once you have researched warp gate, the build time for a zealot out of a gateway is shorter. For arguments sake, we could say its the same as warpgate time, so 28+5 = 33 seconds. This is post-warp gate research. Maybe that number might need to be tweaked up or down.
The build time for a zealot out of a warp gate after that would be 38 + 5 seconds warpin, so it takes a LOT longer to build units out of a warp gate than out of a gateway, with the advantage of having those units where you want them instantly, while simultaneously not introducing the problems of proxy gates being too strong, which is what would happen if you just flat out reduced gateway times.
This would then introduce an interesting dynamic for Protoss, whether to make all your gates into warpgates and go full offensive, whether to play a defensive style with some warpgates for warping in vs harass and some gateways to balance it out so that you can still get some good fast production, or whether to go full macro style and rely on static defenses and army positioning, and keep everything in gateway form.
There would have to be like, a million adjustments to balance with this if that were to happen.
Like the fundamentals of playing Protoss would have to change, basically.
Protoss is a race built around specific timings. Their macro mechanic makes certain timings work. Their main unit producing structure allows specific timings. Protoss is like, the ridiculously time-focused race. Changing the nature of timings of gateways would change that in a really, really serious way.
Posts
or recognize jest
and like I said it's not something I understand.
i have lived a life where money is so tight for me that I can't grasp why you would pay someone to teach you how to play a game rather than just learn yourself. That has literally never been an option for me.
You can also learn how to play chess, be fit, learn martial arts, and learn piano without a one-on-one trainer.
It's just way, way, way, way, way better with one.
the quote from Blizzard says neither of these things. It does not specifically mention either of the two options being individually overpowered, nor does it mention the combination of the two being overpowered.
You cannot draw a conclusion 100% either way from that statement, but given that they said Protoss splash damage is too strong, that does lean you, logically, towards assuming that it is both units together, as well as the fact that they only nerfed the templar to start with. You are once again taking quotes and attempting to pull meaning from them to suit what you want, whereas I am simply pointing out to you your fallacies in such.
For example trying to claim that warpgates + chronoboost are overpowered because of a claim that Blizzard said, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO, "protoss can dump MINERALS too easily with warpgate and chronoboost lategame". Which they fixed with a zealot build time change. And as tux pointed out, there aren't any other mineral dumps on the warpgate than zealots, so there is no other thing that they could have been referring to.
Dude, nowhere does it say that both are too powerful separately. The only thing it says is that they felt Protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered.
You read way more into that then was there too, you just read it in a different way and then hilariously touted your apparently amazing reasoning capabilities.
+1
I enjoyed this replay
That said, however, I do wish you'd have built that cannon one spot lower so that it formed part of a complete wall, or at least put another pylon there to block it. You had plenty of time to do so, and probes are never going to keep zerglings back for long.
I did like how you checked the gold base thoughl.
Yes you can't be 100%
of course not. but you can make inferences think about what they seem to be implying from that statement.
how are there not any other mineral dumps than zealots? stalkers are only 50 gas, not a large cost in the late game.
plus we have david kim trying out different warpgate ideas etc etc etc
I feel that this indicates there will be a change to warpgates in the future.
Edit: US and Canada (minus Quebec) only
because the whole idea of dumping minerals is that you have a bunch of minerals you aren't using because you're using your gas on something else.
dumping gas along with minerals defeats the purpose of a mineral dump.
I wouldn't have stopped had I not been called a "cunt" of course.
always the towering pillar of morality aren't we, duck.
Yes, your slapfight is over. And you might want to check the edict again, cunt.
interesting thought experiment.
I only bring this up b/c you posted this in the middle of colossi/HT balance discussion. While I will agree the game is (apparently)pretty much balanced at this point, I would argue the more important question is "is it fun?" For both players and spectators. I figure that everyone agrees that colossi are the most boring tech choice in the game, but due to balance reasons, protoss is getting pigeonholed into going that route everytime (this is certainly arguable as protoss players surely have other doors to open, but the current metagame supports this view). Either colossus needs to be knocked down to the perceived value of the other tech choices or the other tech choices need to have their perceived value bumped up to that of the colossus if variety is desired. Obviously this makes for a huge balance headache.
Obviously this is all based on the current metagame. Maybe a huge shift in the metagame will make the other tech choices as desirable or even more desirable that going colossus.
I just don't see the same excitement in games of SC2 that was readily apparent in BW. And I'm afraid that strategies may stagnate, which will only make it worse.
EDIT: I fear that everyone is too concerned over whether the game is perfectly balance (and accept that as good enough), when I feel that, what good is a perfectly balanced game if it isn't exciting to watch/fun to play?
this is definitely my primary concern as well. i think terran is the most dynamic of all 3 races. they have so many nifty toys, such broad tech options, and a bevy of strats that are fun to watch. this is why I support making gateway armies more powerful at the cost of colossi because I think it'd lead to more interesting matches. imagine if blink stalkers were even MORE powerful or zealots did more than just serve as meatshields that quickly vanish against late game armies. of course it'd be at the expense of colossi but it'd also be more fun to watch.
And despite their broad tech options, the prevalence of colossi centric builds in PvT, is limiting the terran to going viking. There has certainly been some variation (a recent mass thor game comes to mind), but vikings are still probably the most effective option to deal with colossi. Having one race stagnate can potentially cause the other races to stagnate in the matchup as well, which makes for some very boring games.
Obviously I am being a bit pessimistic...but I feel my concerns have at least some merit.
Steam ID
I think a problem with protoss is that stargate tech is so situational.
Phoenixes are great units, don't get me wrong. But they are very situational. They are great at harass, but only good as part of your army if your opponent has a very specific unit mix that is useful to have the phoenixes against, such as a couple banshees, or a couple tanks that you can lift.
Void rays are also great units, but they also suffer from a similar problem. As part of an army, they are only good in numbers greater than 4-5, and they also die very quickly when focused, especially by a cheap and easily massed unit like marines, which Protoss needs AOE units to effectively deal with large numbers of. Besides that, they're essentially harass units.
Carriers are great, but take a long time to get to and are not as powerful once on the field as a Colossus would be in a similar situation.
Gateway units themselves are good, but they need support units to really shine, and the problem with the current metagame (which may not be reflective of the overall state of the game but is a current true fact right now) is that the only tech path that provides truly effective support units (key fact - support units as part of an army, not merely harass units) is the robotics tech path.
If there was a change made to make Protoss capable of dealing cost-efficiently with masses of hydralisks or marines using a tech path besides Colossus, I think we'd see a lot more stargate play. As it is, any plan involving stargate tech vs Terran or Zerg has to, at some point, be transitioning into Colossus to deal with the inevitable hydralisks or marines.
Although if more players learned that the response to your opponent going for expensive flashy tech is to go fucking kill him, then that harass might get into trouble
Are we not aware of 4 gate and 6 gate pushes? Those are extremely prevalent as is. You don't even need colossi. Mind you this is from a zerg viewpoint.
While I support the idea that the game should be, when possible, designed to be more fun to watch I also think that theorycrafting the massive amounts of balance changes required to effectively force viability for certain units or playstyles in the metagame is both silly and a waste of time. The metagame continues to change on its own and Blizzard will do what Blizzard does, whether you think that X changes to warpgate tech and Y changes to mothership rushes would be super rad or not.
Well you would have to do more than just make gateway units stronger and colossi weaker, for the exact reasons you pointed out.
Delaying warpgates would probably be enough to balance 4gate with stronger gateway units.
Nerfing FF (I don't know how, but in some way) would probably be enough to balance 6 gate pushes.
But I feel I'm delving too far into a hornet's nest so I'm not going to keep suggesting "potential balance changes." My main point is, I don't care what changes I just want something about protoss to change (either a metagame shift which would be ideal, or through balance changes, which would be ugly an impractical).
Buffing Gateway units seems like a really bad idea to me though. 4 and 6-gate pushes are already terrifying enough at pretty much all levels of play. I do, however, like the change (I think Dhal mentioned) where they'd increase WG cooldowns and reduce build-times for units built from a Gateway after WG research is complete.
It'd be cool to be plopped in a weak bracket and get to the second qualifier where you could at least get a few games versus some good players. Heck maybe even you get super randomly to the top 32 and get a nice match with a pro.
Oh I agree with this 100%. Trying to change that much at this point is entirely impractical, which is why I don't like discussing the topic. But I'm just feeling a bit pessimistic about the current state of the matchups. And I do think that even if the game is perfectly balanced in it's current state, if the meta game doesn't evolve, I don't know if the scene will survive. And that's my fundamental worry, does the current balance state support an evolution in the metagame? Obviously it's impossible to answer that. And we still have two expansion packs to go through.
And again, I realize I'm am being very pessimistic. It's just kinda how I feel right now.
EDIT: and in answer to your question, yes I was very crestfallen at the HT nerf. I would much rather have seen a colossus nerf. And I say this as both a terran and protoss player.
not saying changes couldn't bring benefits if that's what they decide to do, but I can't see passing a verdict right now for certain tech being too obvious of a choice or too powerful over other tech.
I don't think protoss want to go colossus every game, even pro players, not just because it's boring but because it's obvious. I imagine some variability will come to the matchup in more than the creative one base plays we've seen on both sides. if terran make mech work, that would obviously influence protoss by force. if toss make any given thing work, that will change how terran plays. not enough time has passed for me to say this won't happen.
at least, that's how I understand the evolution of these matchups. something that takes time.
maybe a certain breed of mech play is OP tvp. maybe there is a way to integrate stargate besides phoenix vs. vikings. dunno.
B.net: Kusanku
Maybe you could have gotten to high masters if you didn't spend so much time arguing on forums Dhal. (/sarcasm)
yes, this is the one I proposed.
Basically current build times, lets take a zealot for example, is 38 seconds out of a gateway, and 28 seconds (+5 warpin time) out of a warp gate.
If we keep the base 38 seconds for normal gateways, leave warp gate tech where it is.
Then once you have researched warp gate, the build time for a zealot out of a gateway is shorter. For arguments sake, we could say its the same as warpgate time, so 28+5 = 33 seconds. This is post-warp gate research. Maybe that number might need to be tweaked up or down.
The build time for a zealot out of a warp gate after that would be 38 + 5 seconds warpin, so it takes a LOT longer to build units out of a warp gate than out of a gateway, with the advantage of having those units where you want them instantly, while simultaneously not introducing the problems of proxy gates being too strong, which is what would happen if you just flat out reduced gateway times.
This would then introduce an interesting dynamic for Protoss, whether to make all your gates into warpgates and go full offensive, whether to play a defensive style with some warpgates for warping in vs harass and some gateways to balance it out so that you can still get some good fast production, or whether to go full macro style and rely on static defenses and army positioning, and keep everything in gateway form.
Just about every ZvZ I have banelings rushing straight for the mineral line around 5 minutes in.
Lots of blue flame rushes into 2 port cloaked banshee.
Lots of fake 3 gate/nexus cancel into 4 or 5 gate.
They pay people to worry about it so that you don't have to.
Don't forget that we're getting two expansions. The scene is exciting enough at the moment, with enough variation in builds to sustain itself for 2-3 years until we get new units out, in addition to balance changes. I think concerns about SC2's ability to entertain indefinitely is a little premature.
Oh lord, I if I had been drinking anything it would be all over my monitor right now. Thanks for that.
There would have to be like, a million adjustments to balance with this if that were to happen.
Like the fundamentals of playing Protoss would have to change, basically.
Protoss is a race built around specific timings. Their macro mechanic makes certain timings work. Their main unit producing structure allows specific timings. Protoss is like, the ridiculously time-focused race. Changing the nature of timings of gateways would change that in a really, really serious way.