|
Switzerland2892 Posts
|
Every time I see a new month I get depressed -_-
|
Why the imbalance in ZvT?
I don't understand.
|
this is just beyond acceptable for a balanced game
these guys are btw doing an awesome job at providing this data, always looking forward to this every month
id like to have a direct response by david kim to this data at some point, atm blizzard seems so disconnected to the current pro scene, its a little disappointing to be honest
|
ZvT being worse than PvT? Totally didn't expect that. The rest of the world is so much different from Korea.
|
On October 07 2011 22:41 Tsubbi wrote: this is just beyond acceptable for a balanced game
these guys are btw doing an awesome job at providing this data, always looking forward to this every month
id like to have a direct response by david kim to this data at some point, atm blizzard seems so disconnected to the current pro scene, its a little disappointing to be honest
I've talked with David Kim and he doesn't really keep up with the GSL too much.
|
Calm the **** down.
It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW.
|
These charts are actually a bit missleading as they use a different scale than the others. At first I was like, "well toss is getting rolled over TvP" then I saw that it was 47% wich is actually pretty close to 50%.
It loos like they also changed previous months winrates? I am so confused.
|
no offense but tlpd is missing like half of the games
|
Don't forget that even in chess there is a 56%-44% imbalance in favor of white (moves first). Of course that doesn't mean that we should try to keep the game imbalanced, but it means that you shouldn't worry about these percentages to much, just try to win every game!
|
On October 07 2011 22:45 SpiZe wrote: These charts are actually a bit missleading as they use a different scale than the others. At first I was like, "well toss is getting rolled over TvP" then I saw that it was 47% wich is actually pretty close to 50%.
It loos like they also changed previous months winrates? I am so confused. A game is generally considered balanced if the win rates stick somewhere between 47-53% and blizzard is doing a decent enough job for the analyser to use the proper scale for things like this
On October 07 2011 22:48 Mehukannu wrote: 973 at september 2011 almost same as it was at september 2010. Takes a while for all the results to get into TLPD.
|
973 at september 2011 almost same as it was at september 2010.
|
Israel2209 Posts
Just 973 games in September, 1/3 of the sample size of previous months
Edit: got jumped by Mehukannu!
|
The 41% of ZvT is probably DongRaeGu alone haha
|
terran on top, but well we have never seen them with winrates under 50% so what did i expect
|
Still the same as always: Terran on top of everything, Zerg taking second place and Protoss struggling at the bottom. These numbers are not close enought to be considered balanced imo.
|
Thats alot of sad zealots as usual
|
On October 07 2011 22:47 tnud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:45 SpiZe wrote: These charts are actually a bit missleading as they use a different scale than the others. At first I was like, "well toss is getting rolled over TvP" then I saw that it was 47% wich is actually pretty close to 50%.
It loos like they also changed previous months winrates? I am so confused. A game is generally considered balanced if the win rates stick somewhere between 47-53% and blizzard is doing a decent enough job for the analyser to use the proper scale for things like this
Err, not if you look at ZvT.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
|
just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came
and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving
|
On October 07 2011 22:47 Binabik wrote: Don't forget that even in chess there is a 56%-44% imbalance in favor of white (moves first). Of course that doesn't mean that we should try to keep the game imbalanced, but it means that you shouldn't worry about these percentages to much, just try to win every game! In chess you don't always play with the same race.
|
Why so little games in september?
|
I don't like the polynomial that was fitted to the data. It's stated in the picture that it's a 3rd order polynomial (so: a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d), which is a fairly arbitrary choice. I don't think you can just fit a polynomial function to data like this, since the data do not just come from continuous natural evolution, but also discrete jumps (changes in map-pool and mostly balance-patches can create bumps in the graphs that can't easily be approximated by a function fit).
Just provide the raw data without any attempts at fitting it next time.
|
Whoa! Protoss making a steep drop in PvZ match up.
This is getting rdiculous...
Hopefuly they take the opportunity to change some mechanics around with HotS to fix this!
|
On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW.
Should also be noted that the game count for broodwar over 4 years is less than that of sc2 for 1 :D
And broodwar had no patches being applied during that period afaik (tho i will stand corrected quite happily)
Edit: Ninja'd by morrow... :O
|
Terran struggling a bit :'( No more nerfs please!
|
On October 07 2011 22:56 Rannasha wrote: I don't like the polynomial that was fitted to the data. It's stated in the picture that it's a 3rd order polynomial (so: a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d), which is a fairly arbitrary choice. I don't think you can just fit a polynomial function to data like this, since the data do not just come from continuous natural evolution, but also discrete jumps (changes in map-pool and mostly balance-patches can create bumps in the graphs that can't easily be approximated by a function fit).
Just provide the raw data without any attempts at fitting it next time. Clearly the polynomial fit doesn't mean much. Would have been better to choose a moving average (for instance over 3 months)
|
Edited. Daft question, ignore.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
Let's see. The 2nd most imbalanced ZvT month on record. And the most imbalanced PvZ month on record.
Balance is going well.
|
Once again people are ignorant about these diagrams and when the patch has came. The patch hasn't been out for long time so you can't see the state of the game in this yet, wait for Octobers winrate and we will see the current course of the game.
|
Wow I didn't know PvZ was that bad. Also ZvT :O.
|
Those scales are really misleading at first glance.
|
On October 07 2011 22:55 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:47 Binabik wrote: Don't forget that even in chess there is a 56%-44% imbalance in favor of white (moves first). Of course that doesn't mean that we should try to keep the game imbalanced, but it means that you shouldn't worry about these percentages to much, just try to win every game! In chess you don't always play with the same race. But you cant have a fair bo3/bo5?
|
There will always be a time where one race is superior. Blame the players, not the balance. I think the game is balanced well. Just wait for a SC2 Bisu to carry the race forward.
|
It's pretty crazy how much a difference there is in the win % of the pro races vs the win % of master/GMaster players on ladder.
On NA/EU Masster/GMaster level P beats Z 57% of the time while here Z beats P about 57% of the time, a complete reversal.
|
On October 07 2011 22:56 Rannasha wrote: I don't like the polynomial that was fitted to the data. It's stated in the picture that it's a 3rd order polynomial (so: a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d), which is a fairly arbitrary choice. I don't think you can just fit a polynomial function to data like this, since the data do not just come from continuous natural evolution, but also discrete jumps (changes in map-pool and mostly balance-patches can create bumps in the graphs that can't easily be approximated by a function fit).
Just provide the raw data without any attempts at fitting it next time.
Well, it's a trend line, nothing more. I guess it could be de-emphasized a bit. I'm actually fairly happy with how it trends the data points.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
On October 07 2011 23:12 Binabik wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:55 Elean wrote:On October 07 2011 22:47 Binabik wrote: Don't forget that even in chess there is a 56%-44% imbalance in favor of white (moves first). Of course that doesn't mean that we should try to keep the game imbalanced, but it means that you shouldn't worry about these percentages to much, just try to win every game! In chess you don't always play with the same race. But you cant have a fair bo3/bo5?
You don't generally have Bo3/5 in chess.
|
On October 07 2011 23:19 Chewbacca. wrote: It's pretty crazy how much a difference there is in the win % of the pro races vs the win % of master/GMaster players on ladder.
On NA/EU Masster/GMaster level P beats Z 57% of the time while here Z beats P about 57% of the time, a complete reversal. Well I'm a Masters player as well and I can tell you most Masters players really suck and are nowhere near the level of real pro's. So those Blizzard statistics grouping Masters and GM together don't really say anything.
|
On October 07 2011 22:38 Drakeblitz wrote: Why the imbalance in ZvT?
I don't understand. lol xD
I was basically crying watching ZvT's in GSL, the great game they were from both sides...imbalance just makes you want to cry :/
I can say the same about late game ZvP tbh...Stephano vs Huk as an example. Z just seems heavily favored .
I was expecting a lot bigger difference in PvT though....this is strange.
|
People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others.
|
On October 07 2011 23:23 Logros wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:19 Chewbacca. wrote: It's pretty crazy how much a difference there is in the win % of the pro races vs the win % of master/GMaster players on ladder.
On NA/EU Masster/GMaster level P beats Z 57% of the time while here Z beats P about 57% of the time, a complete reversal. Well I'm a Masters player as well and I can tell you most Masters players really suck and are nowhere near the level of real pro's. So those Blizzard statistics grouping Masters and GM together don't really say anything.[/QUOTE They are still important, because many people take the gsl code s balance problems as the reason why they cant win ZvT, PvZ or PvT in their diamond/master division.
Hell, i know silver league players who think they belong into diamond and that it is only the op'ness of terran what hinders them getting there.
|
On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others.
the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent.
|
On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent. Get real, there is no Mvp for protoss.
|
On October 07 2011 23:43 decaf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent. Get real, there is no Mvp for protoss.
can you proof that? ...no?! ok
|
The color blind version is a fantastic addition thanks for that.
|
Where is the sad zergling and the happy marine? :D jk
Thank you guys for this work, it's pretty intersting to see how the game goes month after month.
|
What? Terran is still crushing everything still? I never would have expected that....
/sarcasm.
|
On October 07 2011 23:45 dooge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:43 decaf wrote:On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent. Get real, there is no Mvp for protoss. can you proof that? ...no?! ok
Quite easy to prove, just take a look at the gsl, tons of rising protoss stars and mc who is inconsitent as fuck and code b, no MV.
|
On October 07 2011 22:46 humbre wrote: no offense but tlpd is missing like half of the games
Doesn't matter, if you randomly remove half the games it should still give an accurate result, give or take a couple of percentage points. With a 50% sample that means you're getting pretty damn close to precision (as long as you don't pick and choose which games to remove).
|
On October 07 2011 23:58 kankerganker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:45 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:43 decaf wrote:On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent. Get real, there is no Mvp for protoss. can you proof that? ...no?! ok Quite easy to prove, just take a look at the gsl, tons of rising protoss stars and mc who is inconsitent as fuck and code b, no MV.
It's impossible to prove, because those Protoss players might be consistent and in Code S if they're Terran. The best you can do is eyeball it and give your opinion.
|
On October 07 2011 23:58 kankerganker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:45 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:43 decaf wrote:On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent. Get real, there is no Mvp for protoss. can you proof that? ...no?! ok Quite easy to prove, just take a look at the gsl, tons of rising protoss stars and mc who is inconsitent as fuck and code b, no MV.
His point is that if MVP played protoss he might not be as good, or that if a Protoss player (eg. MC) played Terran he could have been even better than MVP.
No way to prove it, but you do have to go with the expectation that players of all race, ON AVERAGE, are equal skill. While I doubt that you'll have protoss players who could've been on Nestea or MVP's level, on average you can't say that Korean Terrans are better than Protosses... because there's a good chance that the reason Korean Terrans are better on average (excluding cases like MVP) is that the race is stronger.
Coming from a Zerg player. I think the game is pretty balanced at our level (I'm at Top 300 masters) but at the top of the top it feels like there's a skew towards Terrans (and Zerg is about average, and Protoss feels a bit weak atm even with the buffs).
|
sick of the race whine, it only hurts the game we all care about...
the brood war equivalencies are great to look at because we're making a big fuss over nothing. BW was in a similar situation at a similar time in its life time most likely (or possibly worse)
|
keep crying idra + fans, you're doing well!
|
On October 07 2011 23:21 Ctuchik wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:56 Rannasha wrote: I don't like the polynomial that was fitted to the data. It's stated in the picture that it's a 3rd order polynomial (so: a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d), which is a fairly arbitrary choice. I don't think you can just fit a polynomial function to data like this, since the data do not just come from continuous natural evolution, but also discrete jumps (changes in map-pool and mostly balance-patches can create bumps in the graphs that can't easily be approximated by a function fit).
Just provide the raw data without any attempts at fitting it next time. Well, it's a trend line, nothing more. I guess it could be de-emphasized a bit. I'm actually fairly happy with how it trends the data points.
No, it's not a trend line. A 3-month moving average like someone else mentioned earlier would be a trend line. This is fitting a very specific type of function to the data. You only make a fit if you have reasons that the data behaves in a certain way (with some stochastic noise). The fact that a 3rd degree polynomial was used to fit implies that the person doing the fit either believes that winrates follow a 3rd degree polynomial over time or that he doesn't know what a fit is for
|
On October 08 2011 00:06 ilikeLIONZ wrote: keep crying idra + fans, you're doing well!
Idra knows he's doing well, he just won IEM!
|
Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
|
On October 08 2011 00:02 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:46 humbre wrote: no offense but tlpd is missing like half of the games Doesn't matter, if you randomly remove half the games it should still give an accurate result, give or take a couple of percentage points. With a 50% sample that means you're getting pretty damn close to precision (as long as you don't pick and choose which games to remove).
Depends on the sample size. 50% of a sample size of 4 would mean mean pretty much absolutely nothing, albeit mostly because the entire sample size doesn't mean anything either. This is a sample size that is at least large enough that it should be reasonably precise, but a larger sample size is always better.
Also based on the number of games recorded in August, this is probably closer to 1/3rd of the total games that took place in September that should be included, barring a big drop in September tournaments that I'm not aware of.
|
On October 08 2011 00:09 MrSalamandra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:02 FairForever wrote:On October 07 2011 22:46 humbre wrote: no offense but tlpd is missing like half of the games Doesn't matter, if you randomly remove half the games it should still give an accurate result, give or take a couple of percentage points. With a 50% sample that means you're getting pretty damn close to precision (as long as you don't pick and choose which games to remove). Depends on the sample size. 50% of a sample size of 4 would mean mean pretty much absolutely nothing, albeit mostly because the entire sample size doesn't mean anything either. This is a sample size that is at least large enough that it should be reasonably precise, but a larger sample size is always better. Also based on the number of games recorded in August, this is probably closer to 1/3rd of the total games that took place in September that should be included, barring a big drop in September tournaments that I'm not aware of.
You're right.
Sorry, I meant assuming a reasonable sample size. In this case, 900 samples out of 1800 (or even 2700) is more than sufficient.
In your case the sample of 2 of 4 would mean nothing, I wouldn't refer to 4 as a sample size though because theoretically that would be the population, no?
A larger sample size would be better but could be cost-efficient and would have extremely marginal effects on the win %.
So it's still not a huge deal. But yes, I mean based on the numbers we have here I think it's pretty clear to say that, statistically, the ZvP and TvZ winrates clearly reject the hypothesis that the win % in these matchups are 50%. I haven't calculated for TvP but I imagine it would come ot the same conclusion.
EDIT: I haven't calculated for any of them, but from inspection it's clear of the first two statistically. I think it's pretty clear from the TvP matchup but unsure.
|
On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
Dumbest comment i've read on TL EVER.
|
On October 08 2011 00:14 affliction wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50% Dumbest comment i've read on TL EVER.
Its true.
|
On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
So, Terran is not winning by large enough of a margin, is that what you're saying? The further away from 50%, the better?
|
Damn, 13% difference in ZvP. That's... surprising, honestly.
|
On October 08 2011 00:19 Daralii wrote: Damn, 13% difference in ZvP. That's... surprising, honestly.
The 16% difference in ZvT is more surprising to me.
|
how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea)
|
On October 08 2011 00:45 Geo.Rion wrote: how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea) I think a lot of it is the very very tiny sample size.
|
You, sir, have my thanks for producing a colorblind version. =)
|
On October 07 2011 23:43 dooge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 23:28 decaf wrote: People have to take into consideration that those winrates ignore the fact that maps are imbalanced and that some races might have better players than others. the map argument is reasonable and could be taken into account. the 'players of one race are better' argument is non-sense: you have to assume that every race has players of the same skill. otherwise balancing between different races becomes meaningless unless the mechanics of the races are virtually equivalent.
Well if you're going to just assume things, you may as well assume that the game is balanced and all the win-rate discrepancies are due to (dozens of) other variables that affect the game outcome.
Balance between different races the way most players see it IS a meaningless ideal, you'll never get 50-50s for a long period of time, you may as well give up if it bothers you that much.
|
Were there really 1/3 of the games played in September compared to August or July or June? If the number is actually about the same, then there's probably a pretty big selection bias with this data (or, rather, with what games are uploaded into the TPLD).
|
On October 08 2011 00:45 Geo.Rion wrote: how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea)
...This is a graph for all of SEPTEMBER. The patch was released on the 19th of September, after many GSL games had already been played, so it did not affect a lot of games.
|
Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
wow, just wow, please tell me you're not serious about this
and how can you speak about how figured out the races are when you play one, and you're probably pretty damn bad at that too.
|
On October 08 2011 00:45 Geo.Rion wrote: how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea) Protoss 'buffed like hell'? I wish .
|
Too early to judge. From my perspective protoss is looking stronger day by day. Metagame is shifting just wait a bit longer.
|
Still obvious that Terran is OP and needs to be nerfed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you watch the game at all, you'd see it. If you played the game, it'd be obvious. The graph just confirms what we already know to be true. And I'm not saying it's some blatant OP like if Terran makes Marines, they win the game (even though that's nearly true in TvZ) but it's an OP in terms of flexibility, available strategies, strength of all-ins, strength of individual units and just how adaptable they are to any and all situations.
It's been this way since the very beginning yet all we get are Bunker changes. Makes sense, right?
|
On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
Um, the game would be balanced and truly based on personal skill if the races averaged a 50% win percentage against each other.
I hope the patch helps, but I have a feeling that the infestor nerf is only gonna kill the Zergs... but I'm curious as to how the small Protoss buffs will play out.
Still can't believe that nothing is really being done about Terran though. Ghosts, man x.x
|
On October 07 2011 22:43 Whiplash wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:41 Tsubbi wrote: this is just beyond acceptable for a balanced game
these guys are btw doing an awesome job at providing this data, always looking forward to this every month
id like to have a direct response by david kim to this data at some point, atm blizzard seems so disconnected to the current pro scene, its a little disappointing to be honest I've talked with David Kim and he doesn't really keep up with the GSL too much. Mainly looking at the dudes who get crushed by 100+ other players sounds like blizz.
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
People like you should be cleaned away from TL.
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
Haha, that's something like terran equivalent to Z and P whining. It made my day, thanks ZorBa.G
BTW: I'm not statistician so. Wouldn't be much more accurate, if every player had some sort of rating. And the win/loss would have weight that depends on players rating difference? Now in many tournaments meets people, especially in early rounds, who are on different skill level. That's a lot of games, which don't tell us a thing about balance. High rating games should have higher weight too.
|
4713 Posts
On October 08 2011 00:45 Geo.Rion wrote: how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea)
Buffed? Where? I seriously hope you don't consider just a 1 range buff to one single unit, or 60 shields on another a huge buff. Blink research time got raised to another 30 seconds, protoss can no longer warp on ramps.
Overall it seems to me like the patch did relatively little to protoss.
A huge buff would be a +10% more damage across the board, this didn't even come close. I doubt the month of October will show any real difference regarding PvT, I do think that PvZ will actually look better because a lot of people freaked out when they saw the fungal nerfs + neural parasite nerf and think the infestor is bad now, which it clearly isn't. However once zerg figure out that the infestor nerf isn't the end of the world and that they are still just as efficient then the graph will continue its downward spiral for Protoss across the board.
Anyway, the graph looks really depressing for Protoss, I may be terran but sign me in on the sad zealot fan club.
|
Lol. How many Toss were there in the GSL to be in this sample ;P
Really surprised ZvT was that negative for the zergs.
edit: Agreed. The buffs were minimal. Still didn't solve too much though another tweak might be enough to limp along until a redesign.
|
On October 07 2011 23:19 Chewbacca. wrote: It's pretty crazy how much a difference there is in the win % of the pro races vs the win % of master/GMaster players on ladder.
On NA/EU Masster/GMaster level P beats Z 57% of the time while here Z beats P about 57% of the time, a complete reversal.
NA/EU GMs and master had a 57% win rate in PvZ for the single day of september 13th
If you read that article it says "these are the win rate for September 13th 2011" they should not e taken as proof of anything"
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Aggression do work, but because of how the race works, you need to hit specific timings to exploit weaknesses in opponents' builds. This is quite apparent in the recent ZvP scene where toss build orders do not change much and IM zergs will just end the game with a 2 or 3 base push. However in ZvT, with so many new builds being developed and the number of builds terran can deviate from their 'base' build orders, it's harder to find a weak timing to exploit. As seen in July's games, zerg's aggression comes down a lot to calculated risks. It's not like terran where you can walk up to enemy's doorstep, then retreat when you find out you can't do much damage and still try to claw back from a slightly less favorable position.
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
As a Zerg player, I can tell you there's an insane amount of stuff which Terrans either havn't worked out yet or is only done by a few. Same goes for Protoss (and I'm sure Zerg too) , the idea that your race has figured everything out but your opponents races havn't is idiotic, there's no way to verify this principle at all.
|
On October 08 2011 01:05 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
Haha, that's something like terran equivalent to Z and P whining. It made my day, thanks ZorBa.G BTW: I'm not statistician so. Wouldn't be much more accurate, if every player had some sort of rating. And the win/loss would have weight that depends on players rating difference? Now in many tournaments meets people, especially in early rounds, who are on different skill level. That's a lot of games, which don't tell us a thing about balance. High rating games should have higher weight too.
Unfortunately, what would you base that rating on? Player's ratings would have to to change with ability, and you would have to base how good someone is on how well they are doing currently -which assumes the game is balanced now.
|
its frustrating to see these stats. My terran still is far behind my zerg and toss ... but as long as the changes seem to be directed into what happens in the games and not due to some stats like these, i am happy. Still funny that terran is so on top of zerg, but it has something to do with were the data comes from.
|
On October 07 2011 22:45 SpiZe wrote: These charts are actually a bit missleading as they use a different scale than the others. At first I was like, "well toss is getting rolled over TvP" then I saw that it was 47% wich is actually pretty close to 50%.
It loos like they also changed previous months winrates? I am so confused.
Yeah, honestly that has been a problem since day one.The scale makes like 4-5% of imbalance seem like a huge difference and people overreact >_>
I am confused too about the changed winrates?
BTW which ones are the relevant games/tournaments? GSL this month has been pretty balanced in TvZ I am surprised by the discrepancy here...
|
On October 08 2011 01:14 SeaSwift wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2011 01:05 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
Haha, that's something like terran equivalent to Z and P whining. It made my day, thanks ZorBa.G BTW: I'm not statistician so. Wouldn't be much more accurate, if every player had some sort of rating. And the win/loss would have weight that depends on players rating difference? Now in many tournaments meets people, especially in early rounds, who are on different skill level. That's a lot of games, which don't tell us a thing about balance. High rating games should have higher weight too. Unfortunately, what would you base that rating on? Player's ratings would have to to change with ability, and you would have to base how good someone is on how well they are doing currently -which assumes the game is balanced now. You are right. We cant separate player skill from race. But i still think that the first game of tournament between some famous player and random guy means nothing. And round8 games means more than round128 games.
|
On October 08 2011 01:08 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:45 Geo.Rion wrote: how the hell is Protoss losing more since they got buffed like hell? That is flat out illogical. This just proves to me that this graph doesnt actually represent much, just an interesting piece of work, which shouldnt be given too much weight, if it would reflect balance it simply had to shift upwards for protoss in both mathcups because there's nothing else that could shift it(maps are roughly the same as 1-2 months ago)
It just comes down to not large enough sample and difference in skill of the players that play the games which are taken into consideration (like top foreigner protosses dont compete in enough foreign tourneys because they train in Korea) Buffed? Where? I seriously hope you don't consider just a 1 range buff to one single unit, or 60 shields on another a huge buff. Blink research time got raised to another 30 seconds, protoss can no longer warp on ramps. Overall it seems to me like the patch did relatively little to protoss. A huge buff would be a +10% more damage across the board, this didn't even come close. I doubt the month of October will show any real difference regarding PvT, I do think that PvZ will actually look better because a lot of people freaked out when they saw the fungal nerfs + neural parasite nerf and think the infestor is bad now, which it clearly isn't. However once zerg figure out that the infestor nerf isn't the end of the world and that they are still just as efficient then the graph will continue its downward spiral for Protoss across the board. Anyway, the graph looks really depressing for Protoss, I may be terran but sign me in on the sad zealot fan club. immortal +1 range is a huge buff. Warprism buff was uncalled for to begin with and gives a lot of shields, Mothership got slightly better + and the f-ing infestor, dread of all protoss got 2 serious nerfs. I'm mainly talkig about ZvP because i study that mathcup the most (and played it as P as well), and dont play PvT at all, but +1 immortal range and warprism buff should be felt there as well imo. What would you consider a good patch for protoss if not the last one? Stalker damage increased by 50% and basnhee/mutalisk removed from the game? I've read some more comments, how can Protosses complain about the patch, i canot fathom, really, it's by far the largest push any race got since the fungal buff. Actually,it's overall bigger then that if i think more about it.
|
Don't understand why Blizzard keep letting Terran be so strong, they been overpowered since release and hardly any nerf to them.
The big win:ratio they have against zerg is logical. Double barrack and hellions opening really screw up early game, if terran can play double barrack opening properly they will have around 90-95% win with that even against the best zerg in the world.
Hellion opening prevent zerg getting a third and have no scouting information. So can't tell if the terran going double starport or getting a quick third.
|
these graphs make me laugh harder at the terrans that say their race isn't imba
|
On October 08 2011 01:21 Trumpstyle wrote: Don't understand why Blizzard keep letting Terran be so strong, they been overpowered since release and hardly any nerf to them.
The big win:ratio they have against zerg is logical. Double barrack and hellions opening really screw up early game, if terran can play double barrack opening properly they will have around 90-95% win with that even against the best zerg in the world.
Hellion opening prevent zerg getting a third and have no scouting information. So can't tell if the terran going double starport or getting a quick third.
Really? "hardly any nerf to them." Fucking really? While it's evident that you are completely zerg biased don't post shit that just isn't true to make your case look stronger.
|
The main difference I see between the BW and Sc2 stats is that the BW stats appear to reset ever few months (all races cross back over the 50% line) In Sc2 Terran has been the leader since day1, seriously, has Terran ever dipped below 50% for more than a month in any match up over the last year?
I still believe Blizzard's stats on win rates are garbage. Especially when I see this. Blizzard keeps showing stats where ever matchup is within 5% of each other, it's obviously a distortion of what is really happening.
What I find pretty annoying is that even at the height of the "protoss imba" (around the end of last year) protoss was barely over 50%
|
On October 08 2011 01:28 Treva wrote:
Really? "hardly any nerf to them." Fucking really? While it's evident that you are completely zerg biased don't post shit that just isn't true to make your case look stronger.
Alright then. Give me 3 massive nerfs that Terran has had to their play. I can probably give 5 for Protoss if pushed eg. KA removed.
|
I would murder to see Terran fall below 50% once, or experience the hell that Zergs / Protoss are going through for a couple month.
Terran are spoiled.
|
Need HOTS for some serious game redesign. The main problem is at my level just meh diamond, everything seems pretty even though from playing random a bit id say terran>toss>zerg in terms of hardest to play and if terran gets nerfed more to keep the highest level balanced i just feel at my level things will start getting rediculous.
|
On October 07 2011 22:43 tomatriedes wrote: ZvT being worse than PvT? Totally didn't expect that. The rest of the world is so much different from Korea. Well it includes foreign pvt as well, which foreign protoss are doing well in. But from the data I saw the average in korea was like ~40%.
|
On October 08 2011 01:35 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:28 Treva wrote:
Really? "hardly any nerf to them." Fucking really? While it's evident that you are completely zerg biased don't post shit that just isn't true to make your case look stronger. Alright then. Give me 3 massive nerfs that Terran has had to their play. I can probably give 5 for Protoss if pushed eg. KA removed.
I'm not arguing about Protoss. I never said any race has never been nerfed because I'm not an idiot. I was making a response to something that was wrong which was someone saying terran has hardly been nerfed at all. Which if you have played this game at all you know is not true. Plus I can already tell by the attitude of your post that me posting any nerfs at all will just be responded with something along the likes of how they aren't major nerfs so I'm not going to waste my time.
|
I don't really get it. Seriously what games are being taken into account here?
According to this:
http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=7
1.4 ZvT is roughly at 50%, P is suffering but its not as bad as people make it seem.
1.3
http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=4
Is pretty similar with all races being at roughly 50%(yeah some are doing worse, some are doing better but lets be honest we have at least take into account current strategies)
According to Gom in the current GSL(but oh well to be honest they are less games here so data may seem more extreme)
http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=2011&leaguetype=20&leagueid=24377&gamever=0&mapid=0
ZvT is currently at 52%
PvT is at 33.3%
PvZ at 39%
In GSTL(which if we want to assume that korean Skill level is the highest skill level)
PvZ is at 50% PvT is at 51% ZvT is at 55%
I seriously don't understand which extra games are included in your stats to make it seem that ZvT is so high in favour of Terran when all those other statistics show that its evenish.
And oh well thanks to the person who posted the BW stats. We can't really say too much about Balance when strategies are constantly evolving. And even if we take this stats as the ture ones why does it means that T is OP? In the ilovoov era IIRC ZvT hit 30% favouring T but strategies evolved and the MU was fixed.
I am getting kinda tired with all the race whine tbqh. But I really want to know what makes the OP win% seem kinda different from the ones I posted?
|
On October 08 2011 01:42 windsupernova wrote:I don't really get it. Seriously what games are being taken into account here? According to this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=71.4 ZvT is roughly at 50%, P is suffering but its not as bad as people make it seem. 1.3 http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=4Is pretty similar with all races being at roughly 50%(yeah some are doing worse, some are doing better but lets be honest we have at least take into account current strategies) According to Gom in the current GSL(but oh well to be honest they are less games here so data may seem more extreme) http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=2011&leaguetype=20&leagueid=24377&gamever=0&mapid=0ZvT is currently at 52% PvT is at 33.3% PvZ at 39% In GSTL(which if we want to assume that korean Skill level is the highest skill level) PvZ is at 50% PvT is at 51% ZvT is at 55% I seriously don't understand which extra games are included in your stats to make it seem that ZvT is so high in favour of Terran when all those other statistics show that its evenish. And oh well thanks to the person who posted the BW stats. We can't really say too much about Balance when strategies are constantly evolving. And even if we take this stats as the ture ones why does it means that T is OP? In the ilovoov era IIRC ZvT hit 30% favouring T but strategies evolved and the MU was fixed. I am getting kinda tired with all the race whine tbqh. But I really want to know what makes the OP win% seem kinda different from the ones I posted?
They're TLPD stats. So, it includes GSL, but also NASL, IPL, MLG, and other foreign tournaments. Unlike SC2charts, it doesn't include ladder games.
|
-_- at people that think win rates from pro level games have any bearing to their low level games on ladder.
Honestly if you think X race is OP, make a blog post and take a screen shot of your current league / rank and detail how much you play. Then roll that race and play it for however much time and see if you can get GM or at least high masters. At the end of your journey you can say whether you in fact think that you got carried by the race being OP or whether you still think it's easy.
That would be the closest to an objective way of "proving" that a certain race you think is easy is in fact easy. Somehow I doubt we'd ever see anyone going from x league to GM based on changing race, and even at GM compared to pro level there's a huge difference.
Why do we never see this happen? Because most people that reroll end up going "it's not as easy as I thought". Which is what happens when you take away one sided biased viewpoints.
To be clear, I'm not saying there's no imbalance at pro level, feel free to complain about that. I'm talking about people who take that and use it as an excuse as to why they lose their games on ladder.
|
On October 08 2011 01:48 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:42 windsupernova wrote:I don't really get it. Seriously what games are being taken into account here? According to this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=71.4 ZvT is roughly at 50%, P is suffering but its not as bad as people make it seem. 1.3 http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=4Is pretty similar with all races being at roughly 50%(yeah some are doing worse, some are doing better but lets be honest we have at least take into account current strategies) According to Gom in the current GSL(but oh well to be honest they are less games here so data may seem more extreme) http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=2011&leaguetype=20&leagueid=24377&gamever=0&mapid=0ZvT is currently at 52% PvT is at 33.3% PvZ at 39% In GSTL(which if we want to assume that korean Skill level is the highest skill level) PvZ is at 50% PvT is at 51% ZvT is at 55% I seriously don't understand which extra games are included in your stats to make it seem that ZvT is so high in favour of Terran when all those other statistics show that its evenish. And oh well thanks to the person who posted the BW stats. We can't really say too much about Balance when strategies are constantly evolving. And even if we take this stats as the ture ones why does it means that T is OP? In the ilovoov era IIRC ZvT hit 30% favouring T but strategies evolved and the MU was fixed. I am getting kinda tired with all the race whine tbqh. But I really want to know what makes the OP win% seem kinda different from the ones I posted? They're TLPD stats. So, it includes GSL, but also NASL, IPL, MLG, and other foreign tournaments. Unlike SC2charts, it doesn't include ladder games.
SC2charts doesn't include ladder.
From their main page
2. Why does the database not include laddergames? The main reason is that progamers don't take it serious. The Battle.net Ladder is where they train their strategies, play for fun and try new things. Ladder doesn't really matter all that much and we wanted to focus on the competitive aspect which is why we limit the database to tournaments and leagues (as well as showmatches, koth and whatever there is).
|
Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual.
|
Sad zealot
|
On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual.
At lower levels I imagine what you say is true, but at the top level, (THIS IS ALL JUST GUESSING WITH NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE)
TvZ
Multi-pronged drops are just so strong against zerg Faster reaction time to muta harass = less damage Better marine splits - zergs do need to micro lings/blings but not as much as tank target-firing and marine splitting and whatnot
With ZvP
Protoss can deathball it up, but as level gets higher zerg can engage more counterattacks, harassment, etc. at the same time Zerg can split army better, use nydus/drops/etc. to prevent toss from moving out
So I think as the players get more experienced, the game balances in a different way. IMO Protoss is by far the easiest to play at a Bronze/Silver level, because you just keep your army together and 1A into your opponent. As players get more experienced... yeah.
|
On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual.
Well duh, actually watching the games and thinking about the games is better. Haha I guess you are right, people see numbers and form conclusions without giving it much thought. And yeah people tend to overreact a lot but it kinda bothers me because they discredit the play of the progamers "T/Z/P only wins because OP" "Z/TP only lost because UP" is such a crap mentality to support progamers.
At this rate we won't get legends like Savior, ilovoov, Nada, Boxer, Garimto, Reach, Nal Ra..etc, because when someone makes a strategy shift people only think now "hmmm is that OP? He won because of his race obv."
Such a BS way of thinking. Hahaha sorry for venting
|
A lot of people are in denial that a problem exists. It is not a coincidence that Terran has been on top for 12 months, with over 10 thousand games a month factored in. Both Protoss and Zerg have spent a lot of time below 45% in some match ups, Terran has never even come close to that.
|
Am I reading it wrong or is this international data only? (aka not Korea)
|
Well.. I don't see how you could change this. If you nerf terran too much, only korean terran could win with them. But if you don't nerf them enough, korean terran will still dominate other races.
|
On October 08 2011 02:02 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Well duh, actually watching the games and thinking about the games is better. Haha I guess you are right, people see numbers and form conclusions without giving it much thought. And yeah people tend to overreact a lot but it kinda bothers me because they discredit the play of the progamers "T/Z/P only wins because OP" "Z/TP only lost because UP" is such a crap mentality to support progamers. At this rate we won't get legends like Savior, ilovoov, Nada, Boxer, Garimto, Reach, Nal Ra..etc, because when someone makes a strategy shift people only think now "hmmm is that OP? He won because of his race obv." Such a BS way of thinking. Hahaha sorry for venting
No one's saying that MVP and Nestea aren't dominant. The fact is regardless of balance these two are exceptional.
They're, however, considered outliers. When you look at the average Korean pro and realize that the Terrans are hugely outperforming the Protoss ones (and, to a lesser extent, the Zergs) you realize there's a problem. Even discounting MVP/Nestea I bet you'd still see huge discrepancies that are statistically significant.
|
On October 08 2011 01:52 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:48 -_- wrote:On October 08 2011 01:42 windsupernova wrote:I don't really get it. Seriously what games are being taken into account here? According to this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=71.4 ZvT is roughly at 50%, P is suffering but its not as bad as people make it seem. 1.3 http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=4Is pretty similar with all races being at roughly 50%(yeah some are doing worse, some are doing better but lets be honest we have at least take into account current strategies) According to Gom in the current GSL(but oh well to be honest they are less games here so data may seem more extreme) http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=2011&leaguetype=20&leagueid=24377&gamever=0&mapid=0ZvT is currently at 52% PvT is at 33.3% PvZ at 39% In GSTL(which if we want to assume that korean Skill level is the highest skill level) PvZ is at 50% PvT is at 51% ZvT is at 55% I seriously don't understand which extra games are included in your stats to make it seem that ZvT is so high in favour of Terran when all those other statistics show that its evenish. And oh well thanks to the person who posted the BW stats. We can't really say too much about Balance when strategies are constantly evolving. And even if we take this stats as the ture ones why does it means that T is OP? In the ilovoov era IIRC ZvT hit 30% favouring T but strategies evolved and the MU was fixed. I am getting kinda tired with all the race whine tbqh. But I really want to know what makes the OP win% seem kinda different from the ones I posted? They're TLPD stats. So, it includes GSL, but also NASL, IPL, MLG, and other foreign tournaments. Unlike SC2charts, it doesn't include ladder games. SC2charts doesn't include ladder. From their main page 2. Why does the database not include laddergames? The main reason is that progamers don't take it serious. The Battle.net Ladder is where they train their strategies, play for fun and try new things. Ladder doesn't really matter all that much and we wanted to focus on the competitive aspect which is why we limit the database to tournaments and leagues (as well as showmatches, koth and whatever there is).
My mistake. I thought SC2charts was something like SC2ranks.
|
On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual.
Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch).
Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out.
|
theres only 900 games this month instead of the like 3k from the other months?
|
Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it?
|
On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out.
terran, terran (top3), terran next 2-3 gsls (tvt finals)
blizzcon: terran
after that: bunker time increased by 5 seconds
|
On October 08 2011 02:24 -_- wrote: Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it? The database they use is TLPD, as they have written under the chart(s)
|
On October 08 2011 02:28 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:24 -_- wrote: Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it? The database they use is TLPD, as they have written under the chart(s)
actually it says otherwise in their faq:
1. What are those rankings based on? The ranking is based on the match database of MyStarCraft.de which is a german website. The database includes all sorts of tournaments and leagues, also weekly cups (quarterfinals onwards). Right now the database is even bigger than the one on TL itself (even though it's pretty close). And of course: as we are german we are reliable!
|
On October 08 2011 02:33 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:28 clusen wrote:On October 08 2011 02:24 -_- wrote: Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it? The database they use is TLPD, as they have written under the chart(s) actually it says otherwise in their faq: 1. What are those rankings based on? The ranking is based on the match database of MyStarCraft.de which is a german website. The database includes all sorts of tournaments and leagues, also weekly cups (quarterfinals onwards). Right now the database is even bigger than the one on TL itself (even though it's pretty close). And of course: as we are german we are reliable!
Ahh. So my guess is the difference between the TLPD and the German Database is that the german database includes more games, and most likely a slightly lower level of play. Thank you so much!
|
On October 08 2011 02:37 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:33 Tsubbi wrote:On October 08 2011 02:28 clusen wrote:On October 08 2011 02:24 -_- wrote: Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it? The database they use is TLPD, as they have written under the chart(s) actually it says otherwise in their faq: 1. What are those rankings based on? The ranking is based on the match database of MyStarCraft.de which is a german website. The database includes all sorts of tournaments and leagues, also weekly cups (quarterfinals onwards). Right now the database is even bigger than the one on TL itself (even though it's pretty close). And of course: as we are german we are reliable! Ahh. So my guess is the difference between the TLPD and the German Database is that the german database includes more games, and most likely a slightly lower level of play. Thank you so much!
how dare you
more EUROPEAN tourneys included certainly leads to slightly higher skill level if anything
|
ZvsT and ZvP seem to have changed as percentages. What happened?
|
Downward slope = Sad Zealot.
|
the only verdict i got from this is that the bane of protoss is not TERRAN, it is ZERG , like i was mentioning in a previous thread, ppl have been ignoring this and blameing terran all the time for protoss doing badly hahahahah.
|
On October 08 2011 01:41 Treva wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:35 SeaSwift wrote:On October 08 2011 01:28 Treva wrote:
Really? "hardly any nerf to them." Fucking really? While it's evident that you are completely zerg biased don't post shit that just isn't true to make your case look stronger. Alright then. Give me 3 massive nerfs that Terran has had to their play. I can probably give 5 for Protoss if pushed eg. KA removed. I'm not arguing about Protoss. I never said any race has never been nerfed because I'm not an idiot. I was making a response to something that was wrong which was someone saying terran has hardly been nerfed at all. Which if you have played this game at all you know is not true. Plus I can already tell by the attitude of your post that me posting any nerfs at all will just be responded with something along the likes of how they aren't major nerfs so I'm not going to waste my time.
Fair enough then, I guess it really is hard objectively to decide what counts as a major nerf, so it is probably not worth either of us wasting time.
|
The only real conclusion to draw here is that Terran has clearly been the dominant race all throughout the timeline. Taking a single data point is just dumb and irresponsible, but looking at trends over the course of months, maps, patches, and meta-shifts one thing stays the same, Terran on top.
|
in ZvP, the reason zergs were losing so bad at the start was because of the odd timings and number of different builds zergs could do. Now it's on the other foot and protosses just can't really deal with it.
|
On October 08 2011 02:37 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:33 Tsubbi wrote:On October 08 2011 02:28 clusen wrote:On October 08 2011 02:24 -_- wrote: Hey, I'm looking at the sc2 charts site and I can't for the life of me find their database. I want to look at the database so I can look at for example the last 100/200/1000 games put in. Could anybody help me find it? The database they use is TLPD, as they have written under the chart(s) actually it says otherwise in their faq: 1. What are those rankings based on? The ranking is based on the match database of MyStarCraft.de which is a german website. The database includes all sorts of tournaments and leagues, also weekly cups (quarterfinals onwards). Right now the database is even bigger than the one on TL itself (even though it's pretty close). And of course: as we are german we are reliable! Ahh. So my guess is the difference between the TLPD and the German Database is that the german database includes more games, and most likely a slightly lower level of play. Thank you so much!
The TLPD includes a ton of weekly cups (Craftcup for example) and showmatches (like boxer - yellow) too. Imo a graph where just games between pro gamers are taken into account would be nice :/
|
On October 07 2011 23:02 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:56 Rannasha wrote: I don't like the polynomial that was fitted to the data. It's stated in the picture that it's a 3rd order polynomial (so: a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d), which is a fairly arbitrary choice. I don't think you can just fit a polynomial function to data like this, since the data do not just come from continuous natural evolution, but also discrete jumps (changes in map-pool and mostly balance-patches can create bumps in the graphs that can't easily be approximated by a function fit).
Just provide the raw data without any attempts at fitting it next time. Clearly the polynomial fit doesn't mean much. Would have been better to choose a moving average (for instance over 3 months)
Totally agree with that. The random order polynomial fit made me cringe when I saw it. Don't try and impose trend lines on these things unless the trends are statistically valid - which these clearly aren't.
Maybe that's just the statistician in me coming out since graphs at work here must always be perfect with no misinformation or no misleading information.
|
On October 08 2011 02:51 jinixxx123 wrote: the only verdict i got from this is that the bane of protoss is not TERRAN, it is ZERG , like i was mentioning in a previous thread, ppl have been ignoring this and blameing terran all the time for protoss doing badly hahahahah. Virtually every Protoss got knocked out of Code S where all the Terrans are, Code A has been ZvP mostly. If Protoss are having trouble with Terran you probably wouldn't see it because none of them can get high enough to verse all the good ones
|
Zerg smashing Protoss and Terran smashing Zerg and Protoss(mostly zerg).
|
Did we ever come to a conses about Terran? I mentioned this in another race win rate analysis thread, but I find it deeply disturbing that Terran win rates have never dropped below 50%... ever. Which is a major difference between BW and SC2, in that BW had times when each race would be below 50% as the metagame developed and maps were cycled.
Perhaps the current win rate discrepancies are a function of map pool? Or perhaps player progression? In any case, at the very least Protoss and Zerg need to greatly improve their skill to overcome any... disadvantages that may exist in the design of the game.
Also, perhaps this is a simple function of a Terran oriented game? Perhaps with the release of the additional expansion packs there will be a shift as the other races get better units and abilities that are on par with those of Terran.
|
TvP only looks fair because all tosses lose to Z before they ever get the chance to get crushed by the Top Ts
|
MC said quite recently that actually his PvT wasn't bad and it was PvZ that he felt was hard. I guess the results might reflect that.
|
if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X.
|
On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out.
yeah lets not take player skill into account. GSL will probably will be MVP, IPL dunno maybe MC? He looked really good yesterday.
+ Show Spoiler + He beat 1 (one!!) Korean Terran!!!!!!
Blizzcon will prob be MVP or Nestea(prob MVP because he has a good record against the Tea)
GSL if MVP is still as dominant as he is will prob go to Terran. But thats because MVP is a fucking Beast. But hey lets look at championships in BW!
OSL # of champions
14 T(!!!) 10 Zerg 9 P
Well... maybe MSL is more balanced
12 T 10 Z 4 P
... Welp I guess BW is a broken game. Someone tell Flash that he is being carried by his race.
Did I make a valid point? No! The thing is that balance is something much more complicated that watching the # of champions of each race.But its obvious that you have your mind set so I guess I am just wasting time. I am not even saying the game is balanced but basing your conclusions based on solely stuff as winrates(those can change based on the strategies used, look at how TvZ evolved through the years in BW) or # of championships is just... moronic.
|
Iam getting sick, tired and accustomed to seeing Terran come out on top. It has been this way since beta. I really wonder why Blizzard doesn't address this issue.
|
On October 08 2011 03:53 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out. yeah lets not take player skill into account. GSL will probably will be MVP, IPL dunno maybe MC? He looked really good yesterday. + Show Spoiler + He beat 1 (one!!) Korean Terran!!!!!!
Blizzcon will prob be MVP or Nestea(prob MVP because he has a good record against the Tea) GSL if MVP is still as dominant as he is will prob go to Terran. But thats because MVP is a fucking Beast. But hey lets look at championships in BW! OSL # of champions 14 T(!!!) 10 Zerg 9 P Well... maybe MSL is more balanced 12 T 10 Z 4 P ... Welp I guess BW is a broken game. Someone tell Flash that he is being carried by his race. Did I make a valid point? No! The thing is that balance is something much more complicated that watching the # of champions of each race.But its obvious that you have your mind set so I guess I am just wasting time. I am not even saying the game is balanced but basing your conclusions based on solely stuff as winrates(those can change based on the strategies used, look at how TvZ evolved through the years in BW) or # of championships is just... moronic.
Looking at just champions is problematic of course. But look at these two charts
Now realize that the Sc2 has almost 9000 more games factored in it's graph than BW's.
In BW's sample of 15959 games every race takes turns going from top to bottom, and at many points every race is within 3% of each other.
Now look at Sc2's graph of 25,187 games. in only two places I see the races reach within 3% for all three. (Oct 2010, and June 2011) Also notice that Terran is on top the entire length of the graph.
Also look at the individual matchups. In BW we see some drastic swings, but every race takes turns above and below the 50% mark in every matchup. Now look at Sc2's matchups. PvZ is the only matchup where there is change in dominance.
Conclusion = BW has better balance
|
On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X.
I think every protoss feels that way.
|
Is SC2 a repeat of SC1, where the most stylistic players and intelligent ones seem to choose terran moreso and everyone just bickers and makes statistics about it all the time?
|
On October 08 2011 05:26 JediGamer wrote: Is SC2 a repeat of SC1, where the most stylistic players and intelligent ones seem to choose terran moreso and everyone just bickers and makes statistics about it all the time?
Having a hard time deciphering if this is a troll post or idiotic post. Someone help me.
|
when do kerean stats come in?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On October 08 2011 05:18 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 03:53 windsupernova wrote:On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out. yeah lets not take player skill into account. GSL will probably will be MVP, IPL dunno maybe MC? He looked really good yesterday. + Show Spoiler + He beat 1 (one!!) Korean Terran!!!!!!
Blizzcon will prob be MVP or Nestea(prob MVP because he has a good record against the Tea) GSL if MVP is still as dominant as he is will prob go to Terran. But thats because MVP is a fucking Beast. But hey lets look at championships in BW! OSL # of champions 14 T(!!!) 10 Zerg 9 P Well... maybe MSL is more balanced 12 T 10 Z 4 P ... Welp I guess BW is a broken game. Someone tell Flash that he is being carried by his race. Did I make a valid point? No! The thing is that balance is something much more complicated that watching the # of champions of each race.But its obvious that you have your mind set so I guess I am just wasting time. I am not even saying the game is balanced but basing your conclusions based on solely stuff as winrates(those can change based on the strategies used, look at how TvZ evolved through the years in BW) or # of championships is just... moronic. Looking at just champions is problematic of course. But look at these two charts Now realize that the Sc2 has almost 9000 more games factored in it's graph than BW's. In BW's sample of 15959 games every race takes turns going from top to bottom, and at many points every race is within 3% of each other. Now look at Sc2's graph of 25,187 games. in only two places I see the races reach within 3% for all three. (Oct 2010, and June 2011) Also notice that Terran is on top the entire length of the graph. Also look at the individual matchups. In BW we see some drastic swings, but every race takes turns above and below the 50% mark in every matchup. Now look at Sc2's matchups. PvZ is the only matchup where there is change in dominance. Conclusion = BW has better balance
I think this post explains it all pretty well. Terran has never had a "bad" season or time. The other races have. In BW everything shifted in SC2 It seems only PvZ and ZvP take turns with metagame and the win/loss percentages.
|
I don't think we should take these stats too seriously. The players haven't adapted to the patch yet and you should be taking reference from the actual games. Creatorprime + Genius and even whitera today has shown that protoss can beat terran easily with their new builds. Zerg is over-reacting to the infestor patch and things will be back to normal soon. The right period that we should look at the winrates should be October/November. If terran increases its win rate, then its disturbing. But i believe PvT and ZvT winrates should climb back up.
And we should look at korean stats, not international stats.
|
On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way.
Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying...
|
On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying...
replay or it didn't happen
we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily.
|
I was going to say I don't understand why PvT was the QQ hot point but then I realized at least Zerg was winning over Protoss.
|
On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW.
Yeah people overreact to these statistics. OMG imba!!!
|
I hope Blizzard doesn't wait for HOTS to do something about this. This is hurting the game, even though many people prefer to think that there is no problem.
|
On October 08 2011 05:18 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 03:53 windsupernova wrote:On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out. yeah lets not take player skill into account. GSL will probably will be MVP, IPL dunno maybe MC? He looked really good yesterday. + Show Spoiler + He beat 1 (one!!) Korean Terran!!!!!!
Blizzcon will prob be MVP or Nestea(prob MVP because he has a good record against the Tea) GSL if MVP is still as dominant as he is will prob go to Terran. But thats because MVP is a fucking Beast. But hey lets look at championships in BW! OSL # of champions 14 T(!!!) 10 Zerg 9 P Well... maybe MSL is more balanced 12 T 10 Z 4 P ... Welp I guess BW is a broken game. Someone tell Flash that he is being carried by his race. Did I make a valid point? No! The thing is that balance is something much more complicated that watching the # of champions of each race.But its obvious that you have your mind set so I guess I am just wasting time. I am not even saying the game is balanced but basing your conclusions based on solely stuff as winrates(those can change based on the strategies used, look at how TvZ evolved through the years in BW) or # of championships is just... moronic. Looking at just champions is problematic of course. But look at these two charts Now realize that the Sc2 has almost 9000 more games factored in it's graph than BW's. In BW's sample of 15959 games every race takes turns going from top to bottom, and at many points every race is within 3% of each other. Now look at Sc2's graph of 25,187 games. in only two places I see the races reach within 3% for all three. (Oct 2010, and June 2011) Also notice that Terran is on top the entire length of the graph. Also look at the individual matchups. In BW we see some drastic swings, but every race takes turns above and below the 50% mark in every matchup. Now look at Sc2's matchups. PvZ is the only matchup where there is change in dominance. Conclusion = BW has better balance
You do realize that the BW chart is aprox 3 years right?
I am just saying that we shouldn´t take conclusions based off 1 year.
|
At the people discussing the lack of a dominant protoss as evidence that protoss is UP. That argument is flawed because there has never been a protoss who dominated his mirror like Nestea and MVP dominate their mirrors (especially Nestea). MC was close for a while but lately has fallen off a cliff in PvP. Losing to Hongun, and Alicia right next to each other and now losing to some random toss. He also lost a PvP in the recent korean weekly I'm pretty sure or at the very least it was really close can't remember the games exactly.
|
Terran has always been on top.
|
On October 09 2011 13:16 JJH777 wrote: At the people discussing the lack of a dominant protoss as evidence that protoss is UP. That argument is flawed because there has never been a protoss who dominated his mirror like Nestea and MVP dominate their mirrors (especially Nestea). MC was close for a while but lately has fallen off a cliff in PvP. Losing to Hongun, and Alicia right next to each other and now losing to some random toss. He also lost a PvP in the recent korean weekly I'm pretty sure or at the very least it was really close can't remember the games exactly.
Interesting point.
Here's something I think you should consider. Because of the warp in mechanic, I think PvP is fundamentally different than the other mirrors. In ZvZ and TvT, because of the defender's advantage, rushes are weaker and drawing out the game is easier, giving players more opportunity to showcase their skill. This is because units come from production buildings.
However, in PvP, units can come from pylons. I believe this means we will never see a Protoss player be as dominant in his mirror matchup as the best Zerg and Terran players are.
|
On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final.
|
On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final.
Rofl those were joke games...
|
The ZvT stats were actually very surprising to me. I thought that ZvT was supposed to be the most balanced non-mirror matchup. I guess not.
|
zvt still being awesome haha ;D
|
You should post graphs to scale, where 0% is the bottom and 100% is the top, would give people a much better sense of what the balance actually is.
|
On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... Anecdotal evidence, how wonderful. When statistics show you the truth, lean back on anecdotes!
|
On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final. You mean the game no one cared about? It was a showmatch where they did retarded builds. That same night Nestea did early 3 base on Antiga with the 3rd being the gold. Yeah, everyone, even the casters knew that people didn't take it seriously.
|
Is there a Korean graph? These stats seem kinda distorted because of Koreans coming over and beating everyone regardless of whatever race they play, well, maybe except for one. ><"
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Terran is the dominant race. They've been holding a considerable win rate margin over Zerg and a slight margin over Protoss. Also PvZ has also been favoring the Zerg these past months.
Still I'd like to see a Korean graph where the highest skill level is right now.
|
I wish I had that kind of win percentage against P T_T. I kind of hoped that since the patch the winrate for P in PvZ would increase so I could whine about it some more, but again I'm shown with percentages that say 'nope, you just suck a lot'.
To be fair, the ZvT probably is because of some random metagame shift at the Terran spectrum and the Zergs just haven't adapted to it. I'm pretty confident in that match up being rather balanced as long as the game stabilizes some more.
On October 09 2011 15:23 K3Nyy wrote: Is there a Korean graph? These stats seem kinda distorted because of Koreans coming over and beating everyone regardless of whatever race they play, well, maybe except for one. ><"
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Terran is the dominant race. They've been holding a considerable win rate margin over Zerg and a slight margin over Protoss. Also PvZ has also been favoring the Zerg these past months.
Still I'd like to see a Korean graph where the highest skill level is right now.
I don't think a Korean graph gives us a lot of exciting data. Considering that most of the top koreans are Terran they will get the most air time on the GSL, GSTL and KotH korea ( perhaps the latter one is more balanced race wise, but I don't think they are held into account. ) and because of that the sample size of Zerg vs Protoss would be too small to pick any balance out of it.
|
On October 09 2011 15:23 Chaosvuistje wrote:I wish I had that kind of win percentage against P T_T. I kind of hoped that since the patch the winrate for P in PvZ would increase so I could whine about it some more, but again I'm shown with percentages that say 'nope, you just suck a lot'. To be fair, the ZvT probably is because of some random metagame shift at the Terran spectrum and the Zergs just haven't adapted to it. I'm pretty confident in that match up being rather balanced as long as the game stabilizes some more. Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 15:23 K3Nyy wrote: Is there a Korean graph? These stats seem kinda distorted because of Koreans coming over and beating everyone regardless of whatever race they play, well, maybe except for one. ><"
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Terran is the dominant race. They've been holding a considerable win rate margin over Zerg and a slight margin over Protoss. Also PvZ has also been favoring the Zerg these past months.
Still I'd like to see a Korean graph where the highest skill level is right now. I don't think a Korean graph gives us a lot of exciting data. Considering that most of the top koreans are Terran they will get the most air time on the GSL, GSTL and KotH korea ( perhaps the latter one is more balanced race wise, but I don't think they are held into account. ) and because of that the sample size of Zerg vs Protoss would be too small to pick any balance out of it.
A few hundred games a month could show us a trend.
|
Its sad to look at those ratios and then think Xel naga fortress /Dual sight are still in the map pool of so many tournaments. Also i never thought TvZ was doing this bad...
|
protoss is just no longer cost effective, and the im quite sure blizzard knows this at a high level but protoss is still op at lower level... ever since they took out amulet (protoss at the that time i remember very clearly were the only race using ht, ghost or infestor yes this is general but it was actually a strat to go for hts unlike other races where it was just reaction) was the biggest blow to the protoss race, you can never come back after losing your entire army as protoss, it is not possible, where as other races can do it through macro (zerg) or defense (terran)... you cant as protoss its just not possible, they claim the protoss 'defensive unit' was the mothership but in reality the protoss defensive unit was always the ht that can warp in storm and prevent a push, to enable a comback and of course other races can just not attack and expand... every race except protoss has that capability now (sorry forcefeilds dont cut it defensivly)!~
|
Ht has a problem with it right now imo, a big void in ht after losing one of its two upgrades at the temple... ghost has energy and cloak upgrade (cloak imo is extremly underused for harass vs zerg and secret nuke play on bases or defensive nukes in base trades really op upgrade that is never even used), infestor ; energy boost and neural (i know lower range but u can still burrow closer if terran doesn't have turrets or raven / snipe observe or lack of observer lol protoss).... missing 1 upgrade for ht, either it be an extra spell unlocked like hunter seeker style or be it a sheild boost or hp boost so snipe doesnt 1 shot and fungal maybe takes an extra one on them seeing as aside from feedback or storm they are quite useless unit as a unit ht... yes they morph into archons but its time and usually on the battlefield just to prevent them from dying anyways, when u make hts to storm... they are there for storm not to be archons,but its still lacking something and protoss is reflecting it, i know blizzard will evenetually add an extra upgrade for ht since they will have to for legacy of the void but it cant come soon enough~
|
On October 09 2011 15:21 MuseMike wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final. You mean the game no one cared about? It was a showmatch where they did retarded builds. That same night Nestea did early 3 base on Antiga with the 3rd being the gold. Yeah, everyone, even the casters knew that people didn't take it seriously.
In which games someone cared about did MC smash other people as terran?
|
Granted the conclusion which can be drawn from the information given does suggest an imbalance, I would really appreciate it if the scales used for each graph showed the real (or not exaggerated) discrepancies between each race. The data for ZvT makes it appear at first as if Z is getting slaughtered on Jan 2011 (arguably true) when at the most the discrepancy was ~9%.
Just saying because it might cause people who dont observe carefully to go crazy on TL about how imbalanced ZvT is.
Edit: sorry if this was already brought up before, this is actually my first time (from what I can remember) seeing this thread. Great initiative.
|
The patch just hit, give it another month.
|
On October 08 2011 02:24 zeropoint wrote: theres only 900 games this month instead of the like 3k from the other months?
Could that not be because these stat's ignore mirror match ups, which from what I have seen recently there is a growing trend as a tournament progress it becomes more TvT orientated.
Just be thankful the Korean tournaments are not included as the stats would be even more Terran dominated
|
On October 09 2011 16:27 Neelia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 15:21 MuseMike wrote:On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final. You mean the game no one cared about? It was a showmatch where they did retarded builds. That same night Nestea did early 3 base on Antiga with the 3rd being the gold. Yeah, everyone, even the casters knew that people didn't take it seriously. In which games someone cared about did MC smash other people as terran?
No one offraces in games that mean anything.
|
On October 09 2011 16:43 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:24 zeropoint wrote: theres only 900 games this month instead of the like 3k from the other months? Could that not be because these stat's ignore mirror match ups, which from what I have seen recently there is a growing trend as a tournament progress it becomes more TvT orientated. Just be thankful the Korean tournaments are not included as the stats would be even more Terran dominated
"This Chart both contains the International and Korean data"
Korean Data is basically GS(T)L, AoL, Iccup Korean Weekly, WCG and FXO Koth.
|
Well if that's the case then the game is reasonably balanced at Pro level, which is good considering Blizzard is aiming the game at Esports
|
|
On October 08 2011 03:53 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:19 Sabu113 wrote:On October 08 2011 01:56 MilesTeg wrote: Well, I still think using your brain > any stat. I don't think TvZ favours Terran that much and I think PvZ favours Protoss.
But even if you only look at stats it's not that bad, people overreact as usual. Tell me the race of the person likely to win IPL, MLG (top 3), and the next 2-3 GSLs (caveated if there's another patch). Blizzcon too though I would be content with throwing that tournament out. yeah lets not take player skill into account. GSL will probably will be MVP, IPL dunno maybe MC? He looked really good yesterday. + Show Spoiler + He beat 1 (one!!) Korean Terran!!!!!!
Blizzcon will prob be MVP or Nestea(prob MVP because he has a good record against the Tea) GSL if MVP is still as dominant as he is will prob go to Terran. But thats because MVP is a fucking Beast. But hey lets look at championships in BW! OSL # of champions 14 T(!!!) 10 Zerg 9 P Well... maybe MSL is more balanced 12 T 10 Z 4 P ... Welp I guess BW is a broken game. Someone tell Flash that he is being carried by his race. Did I make a valid point? No! The thing is that balance is something much more complicated that watching the # of champions of each race.But its obvious that you have your mind set so I guess I am just wasting time. I am not even saying the game is balanced but basing your conclusions based on solely stuff as winrates(those can change based on the strategies used, look at how TvZ evolved through the years in BW) or # of championships is just... moronic.
Well if you just started watching last year I understand it might be hard for you to compare broodwar with SC2. Lets be honest here. If you actually knew what a good balanced game looked like you wouldn't be so obstinate and concede that in the current state of the game no protoss is going to win a tournament within the next year unless there is a change.
Cute though saying you're not commenting about the balance of the game. Try posting in good faith and not being purposely obstinate please.
|
ZvT is very balanced at the Korean level in the last few months. International games are greatly inflating ZvT statistics.
|
On October 09 2011 16:59 Topdoller wrote: Well if that's the case then the game is reasonably balanced at Pro level, which is good considering Blizzard is aiming the game at Esports From a Terran POV, definitely.
I think that the way to go is by fixing (I mean NERFING, BIGTIME) the Ghost. It's just not a fun and balanced unit any more.
What does the Ghost do:
vs Zerg: Infestors: Nullified Broodlord: Very easy to take out Ultralisk: Lose their Infestor support, so they can get kited Mutalisk: Snipe 3- shots on huge range. Counters muta- harass Banelings: in small groups, can be sniped very easilly Zerglings: regular attack Hydra's: get 2 shot, but don't really matter :-p
vs Protoss: Zealot: Loses 50 HP (33.3%) + Snipeable Sentry: Loses any utility it has, and 40 HP (50%) Stalker: Loses 80 HP (50%) Dark Templar: Loses cloak and 80 HP (66.6%) High Templar: Completely nullified + Snipeable Observer: loses cloak -> dead Immortals: Lose their special beef ability, and 100 Health Collosi: Lose 150 Health Archons: Lose 300 health !!!!!!! Phoenix: Lose all their AtG capability and lose 100 Health Voidrays: Lose 150 health Carriers: Unusable (Viking) Mothership: Loses any utility it had, her Cloak effect and 350 Health.
I would argue, that once Terran start to use the Ghost effectively in every matchup, like, 20 Ghost on top of their normal army composition, with Snipe micro, Terrans winrate raises to easily over 65%, causing the game to plumit into all- ins before Ghost are out.
The problem of Ghosts vs Z is that you can't kill them, they blend in with Marines and your army lacks capability's to shoot them.
The problem vs P is that they are SUPERIOR in any way in the Caster battle (2x Snipe = 50 Energy, Range 10 IIRC) and EMP is 75 Energy, range (effectively) 12. On top of that, they have higher movement speed, don't need to fear splash and have the highest HP of any caster on top of immediate healing.
Ghost are supperior in a support role, a anti- caster role and the ability to cause damage all alone.
Ghosts are imbalanced as hell. It takes no skill to blanket EMP a Protoss army, stim, a- move and win. Protoss can't retreat (Concussive, Stim, no FF) and just loses. Zerg cannot engage when Terran has Ghosts, because Ghosts break their entire end- game composition.
We're just waiting for Terran to figure this out, mark my words.
Kind regards
PS: I recently made a thread "EMP v Protoss" in which I asked advice on how to play the battle vs EMP. The answer was: - if u get emped, sacrifice Zealots and retreat. - Just don't use Sentry / High templar - Split pre- emptively - Don't attack a terran that has Ghosts Sounds imbalanced as hell to me? What does Terran do vs Templar? 1a and blanket EMP ftw? Ezpz. Gogo Terrancraft!
TL;DR - Nerf Ghosts, they will break the game once Terran figures out.
|
Thank you for the error bars and color-blind version. I love you guys.
|
Lol, ZvT is still my best MU and ZvP my worst.
|
On October 09 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: Its sad to look at those ratios and then think Xel naga fortress /Dual sight are still in the map pool of so many tournaments. Also i never thought TvZ was doing this bad...
you do realize dual sight is considered as zerg favored right daybreak + dualsight was the reason why so few terrans made it through code A quals for sept. why would you want to remove it... unless you're talking about pvz only? cause it's an awful map for toss to play on vs zerg
|
These stats mean 0 until controlledf for Koreans.
Korean Terrans and Zergs been in pretty much every foreign tourney. Korean protoss? like 10% of the representation.
|
How should maps look so that they are good for P>Z>T in that order ?
I am not sure, since it looks like you can either have map that is good for T/P or good for Z ? Meaning, easy expos, barren lands for surrounds etc...
Maybe, by removing any viable elevator play from Terran ? And keeping chokes so P can keep using FF and not get surrounded so easily ?
|
Sigh, Aiur is a sad place nowadays
|
On October 09 2011 15:39 nt-rAven wrote: protoss is just no longer cost effective, and the im quite sure blizzard knows this at a high level but protoss is still op at lower level... ever since they took out amulet (protoss at the that time i remember very clearly were the only race using ht, ghost or infestor yes this is general but it was actually a strat to go for hts unlike other races where it was just reaction) was the biggest blow to the protoss race, you can never come back after losing your entire army as protoss, it is not possible, where as other races can do it through macro (zerg) or defense (terran)... you cant as protoss its just not possible, they claim the protoss 'defensive unit' was the mothership but in reality the protoss defensive unit was always the ht that can warp in storm and prevent a push, to enable a comback and of course other races can just not attack and expand... every race except protoss has that capability now (sorry forcefeilds dont cut it defensivly)!~ Amulat removal was due to completely rapeage of everything. With 15 gates and 2 robo's you remax almost as quickly as a zerg..
|
On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving Nah. Protoss has been doing pretty bad collectively. I mean if Zerg was having such a hard time against protoss and it did, all we heard for two months was protoss OP, protoss death ball, voidrays imba, colossus imba, etc... But now that protoss have been doing poorly for far more time like 3-4 months its nothing.
I feel like if this month protoss does not start climbing up, Blizzard should buff the zealot. Do you agree with me. Right now the zealot is actually weaker than the Brood War zealot and ranged units in SC2 are so much more powerful. In fact I think if the zealot was buffed like +20 shields or something, 1-1-1 build would become much more harder to do.
|
On October 09 2011 18:42 ZaaaaaM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 15:39 nt-rAven wrote: protoss is just no longer cost effective, and the im quite sure blizzard knows this at a high level but protoss is still op at lower level... ever since they took out amulet (protoss at the that time i remember very clearly were the only race using ht, ghost or infestor yes this is general but it was actually a strat to go for hts unlike other races where it was just reaction) was the biggest blow to the protoss race, you can never come back after losing your entire army as protoss, it is not possible, where as other races can do it through macro (zerg) or defense (terran)... you cant as protoss its just not possible, they claim the protoss 'defensive unit' was the mothership but in reality the protoss defensive unit was always the ht that can warp in storm and prevent a push, to enable a comback and of course other races can just not attack and expand... every race except protoss has that capability now (sorry forcefeilds dont cut it defensivly)!~ Amulat removal was due to completely rapeage of everything. With 15 gates and 2 robo's you remax almost as quickly as a zerg..
No Amulet removal was completely stupid. KA was removed in march. Look at the winrates up to that point. Protoss never went above 51.7%. It gave Protoss a defender's advantage, something they desperately needed at later stages of the game as Forcefielding ramps no longer becomes an option at 3+bases.
You can argue that it would've been imbalanced once players played more, and I will argue there was NOWHERE near enough data to make a change as huge as removing KA.
I honestly believe blizzard did not think through the KA removal change very well. Their reasoning for its removal was they believed that Protoss late game AOE was too strong. They didn't mention specifically how it affected matchups, or how it affected compositions. they simply believed Protoss had too many late game AOE. It wasn't a balance change, it was a design decision. And they did not think very thoroughly at all of the implications it would have on balance.
Regardless of balance or not, Blizzard made a huge mistake in removing KA just based on the data (specifically, the lack of data) they had at the time.
|
It would be much easier to balance this game had there not been the Zerg race. Spawn Larvae will haunt Blizzard for the entire lifetime of SC2.
|
On October 09 2011 19:49 usethis2 wrote: It would be much easier to balance this game had there not been the Zerg race. Spawn Larvae will haunt Blizzard for the entire lifetime of SC2.
I think it's marines/marauders(against P) that are haunting sc2 balance
|
On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
i nominate this as dumbest comment on tl the game will be amazing imo if terran has %85 win rate and 30 terrans playing in gsl ro32
|
On October 09 2011 17:52 arbitrageur wrote: These stats mean 0 until controlledf for Koreans.
Korean Terrans and Zergs been in pretty much every foreign tourney. Korean protoss? like 10% of the representation.
i agree. especially the terran dominance in foreign tournaments can be explained with that.
|
On October 09 2011 19:51 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:49 usethis2 wrote: It would be much easier to balance this game had there not been the Zerg race. Spawn Larvae will haunt Blizzard for the entire lifetime of SC2. I think it's marines/marauders(against P) that are haunting sc2 balance Those are units. Easy to change stats. Remember that Blizzard once attempted to nerf Spawn Larvae by making players tab a hotkey million times to train same multiple units instead of press-and-hold, under the guise of "bug fix"? That was a crazy idea if you think about it. (And no, I don't play Z) That lame attempt was rightfully revoked but you can definitely gauge the difficulty Blizzard is having in order to balance the Zerg race.
I'm aware of a couple more similar "bug fixes" that are related to Zerg. And I think everything goes right back down to Spawn Larvae.
|
On October 08 2011 00:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Looking good IMO, the game would be nothing but coinflipping if it was just 50%
You should get an award for the most clueless person on this forum.
|
Glad to see that Protoss are not coming back and continuously getting worse. Maybe it will force Blizzard to actually revamp the design of the race for HotS. But honestly I highly doubt that they will. They will just add a new unit that will make Protoss completely overpowered ("Yay! Protoss is back! Thanks Blizzard!"), then this unit will be nerfed to oblivion and Protoss will suck again.
|
On October 09 2011 20:16 ZenithM wrote: Glad to see that Protoss are not coming back and continuously getting worse. Maybe it will force Blizzard to actually revamp the design of the race for HotS. But honestly I highly doubt that they will. They will just add a new unit that will make Protoss completely overpowered ("Yay! Protoss is back! Thanks Blizzard!"), then this unit will be nerfed to oblivion and Protoss will suck again. Horrible mentality.
|
On October 08 2011 02:06 Reborn8u wrote: A lot of people are in denial that a problem exists. It is not a coincidence that Terran has been on top for 12 months, with over 10 thousand games a month factored in. Both Protoss and Zerg have spent a lot of time below 45% in some match ups, Terran has never even come close to that.
The problem is that you're ignoring the fact that the current balance is within around 5% winrate wise, and rarely do you see a player win just because their race has an OP strat that is completely broke and needs patching (the immortal busts are starting to look like that though).
Anyways, basically the game is balanced around maps right now, with a given map pool a given race will be favored in some matchups, and possibly unfavored in others.
In the past terran was OP, and everyone knew it, right now though, terran is not OP by any means and does not need nerfing (think of a specific unit ,or upgrade, or build time that makes terran too powerful, and then cite 10+ games where that has caused a player to win the game that he wouldn't have otherwise).
|
On October 09 2011 18:57 TheBomb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving Nah. Protoss has been doing pretty bad collectively. I mean if Zerg was having such a hard time against protoss and it did, all we heard for two months was protoss OP, protoss death ball, voidrays imba, colossus imba, etc... But now that protoss have been doing poorly for far more time like 3-4 months its nothing. I feel like if this month protoss does not start climbing up, Blizzard should buff the zealot. Do you agree with me. Right now the zealot is actually weaker than the Brood War zealot and ranged units in SC2 are so much more powerful. In fact I think if the zealot was buffed like +20 shields or something, 1-1-1 build would become much more harder to do. Late game TvP would be heavily Protoss favoured then.
|
On October 09 2011 19:41 GhostFall wrote: It gave Protoss a defender's advantage, something they desperately needed at later stages of the game as Forcefielding ramps no longer becomes an option at 3+bases. The thing is that KA gave toss a huge advantage to be able to warp in a spellcaster anywhere on the map with all his spells ready to cast. The reasoning of nerfing KA was that letting HT's wait for storms is equal to letting ghosts or infestors run from the base. It was just too strong to get such a strong unit with such a strong spell ready at once anywhere on the map where you had a pylon. So as always toss is balanced for attack, not defense.
|
On October 09 2011 20:29 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 18:57 TheBomb wrote:On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving Nah. Protoss has been doing pretty bad collectively. I mean if Zerg was having such a hard time against protoss and it did, all we heard for two months was protoss OP, protoss death ball, voidrays imba, colossus imba, etc... But now that protoss have been doing poorly for far more time like 3-4 months its nothing. I feel like if this month protoss does not start climbing up, Blizzard should buff the zealot. Do you agree with me. Right now the zealot is actually weaker than the Brood War zealot and ranged units in SC2 are so much more powerful. In fact I think if the zealot was buffed like +20 shields or something, 1-1-1 build would become much more harder to do. Late game TvP would be heavily Protoss favoured then. Actually it would be just about the same considering the effect of EMP and that a +20 shield buff would still have shields under 100. While I'm not much of a fan of the suggested buff, i do not agree with your statement due to the popularity of ghosts in lategame pvt.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On October 09 2011 19:51 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 19:49 usethis2 wrote: It would be much easier to balance this game had there not been the Zerg race. Spawn Larvae will haunt Blizzard for the entire lifetime of SC2. I think it's marines/marauders(against P) that are haunting sc2 balance
Also warpgates and forcefields. Honestly if feels as if we are playing a badly designed alpha version of a game sometimes.
|
No surprises there really.
|
I lol at all the people crying balance. Please learn anything about statistics. The sample is biased. It is not a closed system. There are contaminants (Koreans) in the system and until they are adequately controlled for (i.e. completely deleted from the sample) no conclusions or even inferences can be drawn. Everyone making balance conclusions is a complete fool.
|
On October 09 2011 17:42 Namu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 15:37 Aterons_toss wrote: Its sad to look at those ratios and then think Xel naga fortress /Dual sight are still in the map pool of so many tournaments. Also i never thought TvZ was doing this bad... you do realize dual sight is considered as zerg favored right daybreak + dualsight was the reason why so few terrans made it through code A quals for sept. why would you want to remove it... unless you're talking about pvz only? cause it's an awful map for toss to play on vs zerg
Do you have any statistical evidence to back your claims of fact?
|
On October 09 2011 20:22 slam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 20:16 ZenithM wrote: Glad to see that Protoss are not coming back and continuously getting worse. Maybe it will force Blizzard to actually revamp the design of the race for HotS. But honestly I highly doubt that they will. They will just add a new unit that will make Protoss completely overpowered ("Yay! Protoss is back! Thanks Blizzard!"), then this unit will be nerfed to oblivion and Protoss will suck again. Horrible mentality.
It's quite an optimistic mentality as a watcher actually (not as a player obviously). I only care about balance at the highest level and not when I play myself (because I will roll over/get rolled over by terrans 50% of the time with Blizzard's system, regardless of their skill as RTS players, and I can always find something to improve on, which is not so obvious for top players).
What I meant is that eventually there will be a point where Protoss cannot possibly get lower in win ratio and then maybe people will have a look at it. The other perception is to hope that someone will revolutionize Protoss play or that everybody will get better as a whole. That's fine too, but I just don't see it happening, it's a bit delusional to think that current Protoss players are garbage and cannot figure out the race they have been playing for a year.
|
Here is my contribution of GSL only for 2011 so far. Ordered by Tournament not actual date ( as data is from Gomtv.net)
edit: added numbers for TvZ Graph
|
On October 09 2011 20:26 CatNzHat wrote:In the past terran was OP, and everyone knew it, right now though, terran is not OP by any means and does not need nerfing (think of a specific unit ,or upgrade, or build time that makes terran too powerful, and then cite 10+ games where that has caused a player to win the game that he wouldn't have otherwise).
Ha. That is the problem - there is no one single mechanic or statistic that is ruining the game. It is a combination of lots of them - FF/Warp Gate meaning Gateway units (specifically Stalkers) have to suck donkey balls in straight up fights and the subsequent Protoss reliance on Colossi/HTs (and the complete removal of KA), the Marine getting a massive boost from the BW days, the addition of the Marauder, the slight nerfing of the Zealot, the shiftable tech labs/reactors, the Ghost's massive advantage over the HT and the lack of an adequate "counter" etc. All of these combine to give a couple of situations where the game looks totally imbalanced (see MC vs PuMa last IEM).
|
On October 09 2011 20:51 InFi.asc wrote:Here is my contribution of GSL only for 2011 so far. Ordered by Tournament not actual date ( as data is from Gomtv.net) edit: added numbers for TvZ Graph Well now I'm sad.
|
1) Gateway timing nerf meant for PvP really changed the dynamic of ZvP into Zergs favor, because you can drone heavier and safer without worrying about 5-6-7 gate all ins off 1 or 2 bases, that were really, really hard to stop before.
2) Terran is just overall overpowered. Not really because of their units or composition, but because of their superior scouting mechanics, and superior scout-denying mechanics, and sick defenders advantage.
Other players expand: you can scout it 100% of the time. And snipe the expansion often. Terran expand? You have no idea, and they can lift off and retreat. You see a barrack with a tech lab building ... well that can mean banshees soon, or stim soon ... You try to get into the base? They have marines on the edges, and a wall in front.
Now protoss have stalkers, but at least you can see if they expanded.
Zerg you can just run into their base and take a look around, not like it will be stopped before you are on creep.
Repair for Terran means they can be, with very little units, safe from early game attacks. And they can, with very few units, be insanely offensive, with bunkers. It's a bit of the same for protoss with cannon rushes - except that Terran can get their investment back with cancel / salvage, and it's extremely hard to tell if it's a fake or not. A cannon rush at least gives the information that there's a forge somewhere, and so not teching. A bunker rush means ... nothing. It can be 2 barracks marine, it can be reactored hellions, it can be banshee, it can be ... anything.
I strongly feel that with no fog of war, with everyone being able to see exactly what the opponent is doing, Terran would in no way shape or form be overpowered.
But they can simply hide what they are doing better than the other races in the early game.
Now, late game, a nerf to ghosts would be the only thing that is needed to change to bring the game back to balance I feel ...
But the overall problem is early game information gathering and reactions.
Because the 'correct' response to 4 hellions for Zerg, is completely different from the correct response to 8 hellions as Zerg. The response to 4 hellions (few speedlings, queens, tech to lair ling bling muta for the inevitable marine tank medivac push), ensures a loss vs 8 (roaches, counter attack, expect mech play) ... most of the time. And that's just very very annoying.
So yeah ... sentries coming with hallucination but it costing more energy, overlord speed researched at hatch tech for example would be interesting.
|
|
Terran has over 20 build orders that it can use in any match up meanwhile zvt and zvp have very few openers that are safe. I also feel the mule need to mine slower but still have the same total resources collected its just insane how 3 OC with 10 workers can out produce 50 workers.
|
Bring KA amulet back, nerf all +25 energy upgrades to +20, problems solved, ghost nerfed, infestor nerfed, templar buffed but can't storm right as it is warped in :p
But no, seriously, after such a big patch we need at least a couple of month before seeing more stable build orders and whatsnot.
|
On October 09 2011 20:51 InFi.asc wrote:Here is my contribution of GSL only for 2011 so far. Ordered by Tournament not actual date ( as data is from Gomtv.net) edit: added numbers for TvZ Graph Wow, I didný realize PvZ was that bad last months. 26% :O Ofcourse this is a small sample size but that explains why there are no Protoss left. Both Zerg and Terran had literaly double the winrate, 60% vs 30%. But things are looking up again due to the Code A Protoss doing better. Also interesting to see that Zerg has actually been pretty much even with Terran this year apart from the first two months.
|
On October 09 2011 20:52 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 20:26 CatNzHat wrote:In the past terran was OP, and everyone knew it, right now though, terran is not OP by any means and does not need nerfing (think of a specific unit ,or upgrade, or build time that makes terran too powerful, and then cite 10+ games where that has caused a player to win the game that he wouldn't have otherwise). Ha. That is the problem - there is no one single mechanic or statistic that is ruining the game. It is a combination of lots of them - FF/Warp Gate meaning Gateway units (specifically Stalkers) have to suck donkey balls in straight up fights and the subsequent Protoss reliance on Colossi/HTs (and the complete removal of KA), the Marine getting a massive boost from the BW days, the addition of the Marauder, the slight nerfing of the Zealot, the shiftable tech labs/reactors, the Ghost's massive advantage over the HT and the lack of an adequate "counter" etc. All of these combine to give a couple of situations where the game looks totally imbalanced (see MC vs PuMa last IEM). Small correction: the sentry was an attempted solution, not a cause. Blizzard's original design was that we'd have the immortal on the gateway, with them being a dedicated combat unit while stalkers were for harass/emergency AA. They realized that's a bad idea, but instead of changing the immortal they bumped it onto the robo while making stalkers a little beefier and increasing blink's cooldown. That wasn't enough, so they added the sentry.
|
On October 09 2011 20:44 arbitrageur wrote: I lol at all the people crying balance. Please learn anything about statistics. The sample is biased. It is not a closed system. There are contaminants (Koreans) in the system and until they are adequately controlled for (i.e. completely deleted from the sample) no conclusions or even inferences can be drawn. Everyone making balance conclusions is a complete fool.
I always love it when someone displays an arrogant attitude, calls other people names, and subsequently reveals their own total ignorance. So let me makes this clear for you, my friend: This data is all-inclusive, it contains all the data from TLPD for this time period, including GSL matches, ESV Weeklies, and so forth. There are no contaminants, everything is accounted for.
You can try to make an argument that the scenes aren't sufficiently connected, and that this may introduce bias into the data, but that's not clear-cut at all, and would require a very technical argument. Do note that Protoss winrates in the KR-only data are way worse, so it's a bit difficult to argue that it's the Korean Terrans and Zergs smashing foreigner Protoss that produces the perceived imbalance.
Overall, I will say that anyone trying to dismiss these numbers will just believe anything they want regardless of evidence presented, so they should probably just pretend this thread doesn't exist, for the benefit of everyone involved. Go all the way with your denial, bros, you know you want to.
|
On October 08 2011 00:52 ZorBa.G wrote: Terran is just the "most worked out" race atm. Us Terrans keep playing to learn new BO's, tricks ect whilst Protoss and Zerg just come on the forums to QQ how OP Terran is.............
Protoss needs to get out of the 1 A deathball mode and try other shit.
Zerg still have light years ahead yet to even get close to working out their race. With how greedy they play atm, I don't think this will happen for a while.
Honestly, how many Terran BO threads do you see in the TL forums as opposed the Protoss builds and Zerg builds?
Terrans not OP imo. Toss % Zerg just need some innovation!
LOL. I'm actually with you on the notion that the conversation should be about learning new ways to play. But I have to laugh at your "1 A deathball mode" accusations. Are these 1-A-deathball-toss those you encounter on the ladder? Those you witness playing in major tournaments? I'm seeing a ton of innovation from toss...a ton of effort spent on non-deathball tactics.
Kiwikaki vs Stephano: Kiwi's opening build has been based on guerrilla-zealot tactics to snipe the Zerg third. Those of us using warp prisms (White Ra does so as well) have been pursuing a similar non-deathball approach.
tl;dr You sound like you're mired in a March-2011-frame-of-mind. What metagame are you referring to that allows you to dismiss the current-toss approach to the game as a simple "1 A deathball mode"?
|
On October 09 2011 21:42 Logros wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 20:51 InFi.asc wrote:Here is my contribution of GSL only for 2011 so far. Ordered by Tournament not actual date ( as data is from Gomtv.net) edit: added numbers for TvZ Graph Wow, I didný realize PvZ was that bad last months. 26% :O Ofcourse this is a small sample size but that explains why there are no Protoss left. Both Zerg and Terran had literaly double the winrate, 60% vs 30%. But things are looking up again due to the Code A Protoss doing better. Also interesting to see that Zerg has actually been pretty much even with Terran this year apart from the first two months. Could the Code A Protoss being better be because Protoss isn't actually weaker but on a comeback
ORRRR
Because the Protoss players with Code S skill are in Code A because of racial imbalance? a 30% deficit in both matchups is NOT BALANCED. Terrancraft..
|
As a protoss player - I am not surprised at all - especially by the PvZ. Something seemed off about the numbers in the past, as I always saw zergs dominating this matchup in GSL and in high level tournaments.
|
Canada13372 Posts
these charts always make me sad. Hopefully october turns out better for protoss players if the Code A protosses can make their way into Code S
|
On October 10 2011 00:45 ZeromuS wrote:these charts always make me sad. Hopefully october turns out better for protoss players if the Code A protosses can make their way into Code S
that's what we said last GSL :D
|
Canada13372 Posts
On October 10 2011 00:50 InFi.asc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 00:45 ZeromuS wrote:these charts always make me sad. Hopefully october turns out better for protoss players if the Code A protosses can make their way into Code S that's what we said last GSL :D
Don't remind me >.<
|
The solution does not lie in balancing numbers in the current game.
The problem is that Terran rewards high skill far more than Zerg or Protoss. Terran has just got more stuff to work with and that is the result of having received the most development-time when Blizzard made SC2.
Let's hope they fix this by adding more stuff to Zerg and Protoss so highly skilled korean Zergs and Protosses can shine as well.
|
the main problems i see are protoss immobility, the vulnerability to harass, drops, run-bys and the inability to do these things themselves. the dps to snipe expansions or tech buildings is nonexistent and throwing units away seems to hurt way more compared to terran or zerg.
this and HTs are too damn slow t_t
|
Meh, I was hoping that these charts would help bring me back to watching pro SC2 again. I guess I'll just keep waiting till at least a semblance of balance has been restored to the tosses. The current GSL pool of massive T's, a handful of Z's and the lone P aint fun to watch and these graphs further puts a nail into that coffin.
|
Hmm seems like i should switch racesl. :D Protoss loosing in every aspect. :D
|
poor Protoss ... so underpowered ;(
|
While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference.
|
On October 10 2011 03:07 Excludos wrote: While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference.
Zergs have been using runbys and counters much much more. It may not be as flashy and new as ¨hey this new unit comp blah blah blah¨ players have just gotten much much better.
|
On October 10 2011 03:18 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 03:07 Excludos wrote: While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference. Zergs have been using runbys and counters much much more. It may not be as flashy and new as ¨hey this new unit comp blah blah blah¨ players have just gotten much much better.
...which is why Terran is crushing them, right?
|
|
On October 10 2011 03:07 Excludos wrote: While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference.
TvZ has always been pretty horrible but for some reason everyone complains about ZvP, PvZ, PvT instead. This is nothing new really.
|
On October 09 2011 20:51 InFi.asc wrote:Here is my contribution of GSL only for 2011 so far. Ordered by Tournament not actual date ( as data is from Gomtv.net) edit: added numbers for TvZ Graph
according to GSL TvZ is pretty okay and has been for a long time
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
Why do people call a late protoss and terran ball imba shit, but 15 broodlords with corruptors and infestors a nice late game mix?
|
We need to wait a couple of months before judging the balance situation, i don't think the immortal buff will make PvZ and PvT more balanced.
The changes that "killed" protoss are: - warpgate reasearch time change - KA removal - ghost cost change - infestor buff
The first change made 4 gate useless, so T is free to tech (see the 1-1-1) and Z is free to drone without any problem, the other changes made P far weaker late game.
If Blizzard want to (re)balance the game need to change both P early game power (to compensate the 4 gate nerf) and late game. Seems to me they instead tried (with not success at all) to change protoss mid game (the archon buff and the immortal buff).
|
I guess Ghosts and Infestors are pretty good?
Bitching aside, it should be interesting to see how the P progresses in GSL once/if the metagame shifts and people start refining the styles they use.
|
Fungal growth is still way to powerfull, c'mon 2 infestor with full mana can kill an unlimited amount of void rays/vikings, is a broken ability. Like archon toilet is/was.
Ghost is too cheap (vs Protoss).
|
reduce marine dmg from 6 to 5 and game is balanced !
|
On October 10 2011 05:43 Buzzo wrote: We need to wait a couple of months before judging the balance situation, i don't think the immortal buff will make PvZ and PvT more balanced.
The changes that "killed" protoss are: - warpgate reasearch time change - KA removal - ghost cost change - infestor buff
The first change made 4 gate useless, so T is free to tech (see the 1-1-1) and Z is free to drone without any problem, the other changes made P far weaker late game.
If Blizzard want to (re)balance the game need to change both P early game power (to compensate the 4 gate nerf) and late game. Seems to me they instead tried (with not success at all) to change protoss mid game (the archon buff and the immortal buff).
I can tell you that GAS is not a problem against protoss, MINERALS are. Changing the ghost to 200 minerals is actually a nerf in tvp.
|
On October 10 2011 05:59 Buzzo wrote: Fungal growth is still way to powerfull, c'mon 2 infestor with full mana can kill an unlimited amount of void rays/vikings, is a broken ability. Like archon toilet is/was.
Ghost is too cheap (vs Protoss).
...what? 2 infestors with full mana is 4 fungals. That's 160 damage, assuming perfect casting. Void rays have 250 health. Also, in order to even do those chain fungals, you have to have position on those "infinite void rays" for 16 seconds (24 if you actually have enough infestors to kill) which is quite difficult. Archon toilet was an instant kill on anything from a single mothership and ~5 archons.
|
The fact the chart covers 40-60% makes the difference between the differences look substantially higher than they really are, causing a number of people, who didn't look at the exact numbers, to jump to exaggerated conclusions.
Last month the total deviance between the races was 6%, when Blizzard considers anything within 5% balanced, while a decent amount of people were freaking out, because that 6% looked so much more than a 6%.
This month the deviance has increased to 10%, which is reaching the unacceptable level, but many people seem to be treating it as if Protoss have a 20% win ratio while Terran are 80%.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Win rate is no indication of balanced because it doesn't take into consideration things like skill level, there's no way to say if the Terran players are just simply better players, or if it's an actual balance issue. There's always the map factor, as well.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On October 10 2011 06:13 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 05:43 Buzzo wrote: We need to wait a couple of months before judging the balance situation, i don't think the immortal buff will make PvZ and PvT more balanced.
The changes that "killed" protoss are: - warpgate reasearch time change - KA removal - ghost cost change - infestor buff
The first change made 4 gate useless, so T is free to tech (see the 1-1-1) and Z is free to drone without any problem, the other changes made P far weaker late game.
If Blizzard want to (re)balance the game need to change both P early game power (to compensate the 4 gate nerf) and late game. Seems to me they instead tried (with not success at all) to change protoss mid game (the archon buff and the immortal buff).
I can tell you that GAS is not a problem against protoss, MINERALS are. Changing the ghost to 200 minerals is actually a nerf in tvp.
yeah I find this strange, did terran realized they had ghosts after reading the patch note?
|
So this is 1 month's statistics correct?
If so, why the immediate jump on the imbalance bandwagon? There are always new trends in styles, strategies being developed; players meta-gaming each other; new maps in tournaments.
However, if the high win-rates persist for much longer than 1 month then there could be a problem.
For me personally, I don't base too much off of 1 month's stats alone.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On October 10 2011 06:18 Bayyne wrote: So this is 1 month's statistics correct?
If so, why the immediate jump on the imbalance bandwagon? There are always new trends in styles, strategies being developed; players meta-gaming each other; new maps in tournaments.
However, if the high win-rates persist for much longer than 1 month then there could be a problem.
For me personally, I don't base too much off of 1 month's stats alone.
Protoss has <50% winrate since march-april
|
On October 09 2011 14:55 dooraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final. Rofl those were joke games... Name a SERIOUS game that MC has won as Terran vs anyone.... The only reason I said anything about those games is because the only time I can think of MC playing Terran and beating people is at that same event...But I guess you wanted to just throw context to the wind..
|
44% + 46% + 56% = messed up in my book
forgive me, im not a huge fan of statistics, could someone explain me what is up with these charts?
other than that, chart looks still fine to me. the more of blue is probably the 1001 easy win rush styles for terran and the zero ability of people to adapt and come up with a solution, other than the standard forum whine about imbalance.
|
On October 10 2011 06:13 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 05:43 Buzzo wrote: We need to wait a couple of months before judging the balance situation, i don't think the immortal buff will make PvZ and PvT more balanced.
The changes that "killed" protoss are: - warpgate reasearch time change - KA removal - ghost cost change - infestor buff
The first change made 4 gate useless, so T is free to tech (see the 1-1-1) and Z is free to drone without any problem, the other changes made P far weaker late game.
If Blizzard want to (re)balance the game need to change both P early game power (to compensate the 4 gate nerf) and late game. Seems to me they instead tried (with not success at all) to change protoss mid game (the archon buff and the immortal buff).
I can tell you that GAS is not a problem against protoss, MINERALS are. Changing the ghost to 200 minerals is actually a nerf in tvp.
What a stupid thing to say. If you don't have enough minerals and you have too much gas, take some SCVs off gas and saturate your minerals better. Too often I see top Terran players floating far more gas than minerals. This isn't a balance issue, but a "get better at the game" issue. Sure, once you have a certain number of SCVs on minerals they don't do much more because of maximum saturation, but that still is better than floating a great deal of unnecessary gas.
|
P are doing better against T than I would have guessed, and zergs are doing much much worse.
I wonder what the numbers would look like if you eliminated games where terran won using offensive bunkers?
|
Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way.
|
On October 10 2011 06:27 algee wrote: 44% + 46% + 56% = messed up in my book
forgive me, im not a huge fan of statistics, could someone explain me what is up with these charts?
other than that, chart looks still fine to me. the more of blue is probably the 1001 easy win rush styles for terran and the zero ability of people to adapt and come up with a solution, other than the standard forum whine about imbalance.
There's more of one matchup than another.
Let's say there were 10 TvZ, with 60% Now 5 TvP, also at 60% and finally 2 ZvP, at 50%
Terrans overall winrate is 60%, 9/15 Zerg's overall winrate is 5/12, 41.6% Protoss overall winrate is 3/7 42%
|
I dont know about you guys but I am really awaiting for that day when I see Terran being under 45% win rate against both, Zerg and Protoss. Why? Cause up to date there has been nerfs and changes, there has been boosts etc. yet Terran has NEVER! Been below 50% win rate.
Whatta freaking Terran lovers there are at Blizzards ranks, making this game such that one race has been dominant all the time? I wait for that day when all those T players who atm. are telling how graphs are lieing and how T is not dominant etc. are crying blood when they are FINALLY playing the worst race of all and losing more than winning. That would be SO awesome to see. Cause these forums and blizz forums etc. would go nuts of the amount of posts all those sorry ass A-move MMM and BFH players would nonstop tell how this game sucks and how their race need more and more buff and other should be nerfed.
I dont know about others but would prolly die to laughter if that one day happend.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 10 2011 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote: Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way.
Yes, and then you will show us how to hold a voidray allin, or a 6gate, or a 2base blingbust, or just a zerg in general.
|
On October 10 2011 07:36 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote: Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way. Yes, and then you will show us how to hold a voidray allin, or a 6gate, or a 2base blingbust, or just a zerg in general.
Then you'd know how PvT feels for a Protoss.
That said, nerfing the Marine is probably way too drastic for a mere patch. I still think you can drastically improve PvT winrate simply by making CCs unliftable - aka, allowing Protoss to actually distinguish between an all-in and an FE without making an observer.
|
On October 10 2011 03:07 Excludos wrote: While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference.
Terrans have been going up to 3 CC very quickly, while taking map control early on by using Hellions to hard counter Zerglings. It turns out, that when they do that, they don't need to kill a single Drone, and they can still be ahead of Zerg economically, turtle up with lots of turrets to shut down any Muta harass, and after they're up on 3 bases, begin doing pushes with their bio-mech ball which is so much more cost efficient than anything Zerg can stop it with. Even if the Zerg is able to completely crush the first couple of pushes, there's always another army behind waiting to push out. At this point Zerg needs to take a 4th and 5th, and is really spread out, so Terran starts doing drops with 3/3 Marines, which take out Hatcheries and any defensive Spines out in an instant. Zerg begins to lose more and more with each push and the drops kill the economy and Zerg runs out of gas. Same story pretty much every macro game recently where Terran doesn't make a huge blunder. Even when Terran does fall significantly behind, it doesn't mean the game is over, just like we saw in DRG vs Supernova on Daybreak.
|
On October 10 2011 07:57 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 03:07 Excludos wrote: While the PvT (while worse than last, isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be) and PvZ is bad..what in the world is going on with TvZ atm? I haven't noticed any skews in the metagame that should make such big of a difference. Terrans have been going up to 3 CC very quickly, while taking map control early on by using Hellions to hard counter Zerglings. It turns out, that when they do that, they don't need to kill a single Drone, and they can still be ahead of Zerg economically, turtle up with lots of turrets to shut down any Muta harass, and after they're up on 3 bases, begin doing pushes with their bio-mech ball which is so much more cost efficient than anything Zerg can stop it with. Even if the Zerg is able to completely crush the first couple of pushes, there's always another army behind waiting to push out. At this point Zerg needs to take a 4th and 5th, and is really spread out, so Terran starts doing drops with 3/3 Marines, which take out Hatcheries and any defensive Spines out in an instant. Zerg begins to lose more and more with each push and the drops kill the economy and Zerg runs out of gas. Same story pretty much every macro game recently where Terran doesn't make a huge blunder. Even when Terran does fall significantly behind, it doesn't mean the game is over, just like we saw in DRG vs Supernova on Daybreak.
when the zerg gets destroyed by marinedrops, while h has mutalisks out it is hist own goddamn fault.
|
On October 10 2011 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote: Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way.
You should watch IPL. Poor Poor Terran vs Zerg T_T. Not enough Zerg go for the back stab or ling runby.
|
On October 10 2011 07:36 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote: Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way. Yes, and then you will show us how to hold a voidray allin, or a 6gate, or a 2base blingbust, or just a zerg in general.
Just so you know, you don't hold a 2 base blingbust with Marines. Seriously, unless the Terran is somehow going mech, the ZvT ends up being "how to efficiently kill marines".
On October 10 2011 07:43 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 07:36 Snowbear wrote:On October 10 2011 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote: Can we finally nerf the Marine?
That would be a meaningful nerf that would affect all 3 TvX matches ina positive way. Yes, and then you will show us how to hold a voidray allin, or a 6gate, or a 2base blingbust, or just a zerg in general. Then you'd know how PvT feels for a Protoss. That said, nerfing the Marine is probably way too drastic for a mere patch. I still think you can drastically improve PvT winrate simply by making CCs unliftable - aka, allowing Protoss to actually distinguish between an all-in and an FE without making an observer.
Well from the graph, PvT seems much better than you would think. ZvT is apparently even worse. Us Zergs don't qq about it too much though, and only really about the ghosts. Oh, and the knowing whether the terran makes a cc or throwing down 4 more raxes, us zerg have the same problem too lol. See Idra vs MMA at MLG (the one where MMA blew up his cc) the game after. It's what happens when Z assumes T throws up a cc after the 2 rax.
|
On October 10 2011 17:45 me_viet wrote: ZvT is apparently even worse. Us Zergs don't qq about it too much though, and only really about the ghosts.
Spat my drink out. Thanks! Will post more later...
|
On October 11 2011 09:43 Fwiffo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 17:45 me_viet wrote: ZvT is apparently even worse. Us Zergs don't qq about it too much though, and only really about the ghosts. Spat my drink out. Thanks! Will post more later... You can certainly try. I think ZvT is >>> PvT. But that doesn't stop T from being broken.
I think aebriol said a lot of correct things here. I am just hoping that we can see some balance brought to the game in HoTS. Terran wasn't bellow 50% win rate in any MU since release. Whether you look at it logically , statically, or whichever way, Terran is very clearly the most well rounded and the best race.
On October 09 2011 21:07 aebriol wrote: 2) Terran is just overall overpowered. Not really because of their units or composition, but because of their superior scouting mechanics, and superior scout-denying mechanics, and sick defenders advantage.
Other players expand: you can scout it 100% of the time. And snipe the expansion often. Terran expand? You have no idea, and they can lift off and retreat. You see a barrack with a tech lab building ... well that can mean banshees soon, or stim soon ... You try to get into the base? They have marines on the edges, and a wall in front.
Now protoss have stalkers, but at least you can see if they expanded.
Zerg you can just run into their base and take a look around, not like it will be stopped before you are on creep.
Repair for Terran means they can be, with very little units, safe from early game attacks. And they can, with very few units, be insanely offensive, with bunkers. It's a bit of the same for protoss with cannon rushes - except that Terran can get their investment back with cancel / salvage, and it's extremely hard to tell if it's a fake or not. A cannon rush at least gives the information that there's a forge somewhere, and so not teching. A bunker rush means ... nothing. It can be 2 barracks marine, it can be reactored hellions, it can be banshee, it can be ... anything.
I strongly feel that with no fog of war, with everyone being able to see exactly what the opponent is doing, Terran would in no way shape or form be overpowered.
But they can simply hide what they are doing better than the other races in the early game.
Now, late game, a nerf to ghosts would be the only thing that is needed to change to bring the game back to balance I feel ...
But the overall problem is early game information gathering and reactions.
Because the 'correct' response to 4 hellions for Zerg, is completely different from the correct response to 8 hellions as Zerg. The response to 4 hellions (few speedlings, queens, tech to lair ling bling muta for the inevitable marine tank medivac push), ensures a loss vs 8 (roaches, counter attack, expect mech play) ... most of the time. And that's just very very annoying.
So yeah ... sentries coming with hallucination but it costing more energy, overlord speed researched at hatch tech for example would be interesting.
Also, it kinda works as a proof when you see what Zergs we have in Code S. DRG/Losira/Nestea/Leenock....all so good. Only few Terrans can compare to them, yet we keep comparing them.
|
i dont think that this is that bad for a game thats only been out for a year. i mean shit, you have to give SC2 some time. how long did it take to balance BW? years? something like a decade? protoss is doing horrible right now, and thats fine, because eventually that will change. its not going to change instantly, but it will change.
[edit]-fix ghosts and bfh, ffs. >.>
|
On October 11 2011 15:59 Soulriser wrote: i dont think that this is that bad for a game thats only been out for a year. i mean shit, you have to give SC2 some time. how long did it take to balance BW? years? something like a decade? protoss is doing horrible right now, and thats fine, because eventually that will change. its not going to change instantly, but it will change. Broodwar is not balanced. People just learned to leave with what they are given (accepted how things are, gave up whatever).
|
On October 10 2011 06:22 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 14:55 dooraven wrote:On October 09 2011 13:39 kodas wrote:On October 09 2011 01:24 freetgy wrote:On October 09 2011 01:19 Snowbear wrote:On October 08 2011 05:21 Gatored wrote:On October 08 2011 03:50 CuHz wrote: if i could be able to start over; i wish i started off picking terran in BW + sc2. I sometimes offrace as terran and i dont even know their hot keys and i can easily beat top master player protsses =X. I think every protoss feels that way. Don't forget that there are alot of terrans I know which defeat top terran players with protoss without even trying... replay or it didn't happen we have seen mc off racing as terran and defeating people easily. MKP(as protoss) vs slayersMMA, At the last GSL final. Rofl those were joke games... Name a SERIOUS game that MC has won as Terran vs anyone.... The only reason I said anything about those games is because the only time I can think of MC playing Terran and beating people is at that same event...But I guess you wanted to just throw context to the wind..
Wait, I never said that MC played serious games with Terran. I was replying to the comment that apparently Terrans do awesomely with Protoss as evidenced by that game..
|
Protoss lacks variation, every opening is the same, old and dull.
|
It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp.
|
On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp.
This isn't true at all. In masters the 3 races are almost exactly even. In diamond and platinum they are slightly behind the other 2 but there are still plenty of terran. In gold they have the second most and there are far more terran in silver and bronze.
So overall there are far more terran players than anyone else (as bronze and silver are by far the most populated brackets). The only bracket where your argument holds any ground is in diamond and platinum but they are pretty even overall anyway.
This is worldwide by the way.
|
Thank you so much for posting a color blind version!
|
I really hope for a change for protoss in HoTs
|
On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp.
It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game...
|
On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game...
They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable...
|
On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they apparently made casual games unplayable...
Fixed that for you.
I highly doubt they were UNPLAYABLE, just not as fun I suspect. But yes, sometimes Blizzard does have to think about casual players, but if they want it to become a really successful E-sport, they're going to have to make some sacrifices when it comes to casuals.
|
yeh well so Protoss are down in both Zerg and terran haha, nice to see how much the swing has gone from the matchup being Protoss dominated to Zerg dominated lol
See in a month ro two whether Protoss pick up with the lastest patch and any new builds!!
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
On October 11 2011 20:55 ElBlanco wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. This isn't true at all. In masters the 3 races are almost exactly even. In diamond and platinum they are slightly behind the other 2 but there are still plenty of terran. In gold they have the second most and there are far more terran in silver and bronze. So overall there are far more terran players than anyone else (as bronze and silver are by far the most populated brackets). The only bracket where your argument holds any ground is in diamond and platinum but they are pretty even overall anyway. This is worldwide by the way.
Terrans will also generally have less wins on the ladder because their mirror matches are 2x as long as the other 2 races.
|
Sorry if this has been asked before. What is the margin for the error bars? P>68%? p>95%?
Because if we're talking about a pvalue of > 95%, I think we can safely say: _something is wrong here_
|
"more qq more patch" -WhiteIdRA on SC2 balance
(:
On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... does 'should' mean that you are not a casual and therefore dont know if in reality casual players have fun in an imbalanced game?
as for you actual (and quite silly) question - they should because its them casuals who buy the game and keep the sport alive
|
On October 12 2011 00:10 Tommylew wrote: yeh well so Protoss are down in both Zerg and terran haha, nice to see how much the swing has gone from the matchup being Protoss dominated to Zerg dominated lol
See in a month ro two whether Protoss pick up with the lastest patch and any new builds!!
Zerg has had 50%+ winrate PvZ since March lol
|
On October 09 2011 21:07 aebriol wrote: 2) Terran is just overall overpowered. Not really because of their units or composition, but because of their superior scouting mechanics, and superior scout-denying mechanics, and sick defenders advantage.
I feel that's the main cause of terran doing better in tournys. I don't think it's really that fair when it's a race that dictates the matchup most of the time. Terrans can practise their build orders down to the minute detail at least til the mid game. And the main cause of that is mules. Terran that have 2 ocs but haven't expanded is almost 1.5 mining bases, and the other races have to continue producing workers and expanding to keep up with their economy. In the case if their prediction is wrong, terran's aggression will have a high chance dealing damage. This creates a sort of coin-flipping scenario.
Just imagine if mining rate of 1 base is capped regardless of mules, terran will actually need to expand to get their economy advantage. Just by expansion timing, lots of build order information will be revealed. Lots of terran 'OP' early game can be solved, like the effectiveness of 1-1-1 or the threat of it will be reduced.
|
On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable...
Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be.
|
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be.
voidrays werent nearly as often used as you suggest. i dont remember any pro player complaining about them being OP...
in fact many protoss players felt back then that they suck big time.
The only complains you got were from casuals and team games. otherwise the removal of the speed upgrade wouldnt make much sense as no one ever used it in professional games..
|
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be.
I actually think all the void ray nerfs should be removed, with the caveat of longer stargate build time perhaps.
In PvZ, they were considered strong, but only before infestors were used. In PvT they were never considered strong, except when used as a rush.
|
On October 12 2011 02:35 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote:On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. I actually think all the void ray nerfs should be removed, with the caveat of longer stargate build time perhaps. In PvZ, they were considered strong, but only before infestors were used. In PvT they were never considered strong, except when used as a rush.
I do think the Void Ray was overpowered with the greater range. It basically meant that Terran or Zerg could never build buildings anywhere near the edge of their base or they would get picked off. Plus 3gate Stargate, which already is pretty good in PvT, would crush any wall off easily.
|
On October 12 2011 02:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 02:35 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote:On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. I actually think all the void ray nerfs should be removed, with the caveat of longer stargate build time perhaps. In PvZ, they were considered strong, but only before infestors were used. In PvT they were never considered strong, except when used as a rush. I do think the Void Ray was overpowered with the greater range. It basically meant that Terran or Zerg could never build buildings anywhere near the edge of their base or they would get picked off. Plus 3gate Stargate, which already is pretty good in PvT, would crush any wall off easily. I agree that the range nerf was a good one, but they should really revert one of the others
cost: back down from 250/150 to 200/150 (this is probably the one that would make the most sense) damage back to what it was before (probably won't happen since it would affect multiplayer too much for blizzard's liking) give back speed upgrade (protoss has by far the fewest ugrades for their units, and already had the fewest before void ray speed and the amulet were taken away.) Allow fazing again (this is the one that would add the most to the game, since it would encourage more micro to get the most out of your voidrays.)
Unfortunately Blizzard made a unit that has low dps for the first 8 seconds of the battle, and high dps afterwards, which is very counter intuitive for a unit. That means the unit cannot be used in the army nearly as effectively as a unit like the banshee.
So protoss players tried to use them for harass and backstab purposes at the back of bases, after charging on rocks or pylons and keeping the charge by quickly targeting other voidrays for a split second, and then using fazing to keep them alive versus marines. At this point void rays were the most micro intensive unit in the game BY FAR! And then they were nerfed into oblivion by blizzard.
The worst nerf was that their damage while charged was significantly lowered. This is the most important point. Now there is almost no incentive to charge up void rays prebattle, since the change in damage is barely worth the apm requirements. Void rays used to reward apm, and were one of the coolest units in the game. In fact, before these nerfs, there was a long post on TL about how they were the bright spot in this comparatively mechanically-easier game of SC2.
|
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be.
We all know why the reaper was nerfed. I think the voidray was likely nerft due to the scaling damage and it rewarded all-ining. I don't know why blizzard thought a unit that increased its DPS the longer it shot was a good idea. How do you balance a unit like that, when it has 2-3 seperate damage values.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the voidray leaving the game and being replaced "robust" unit. Along with vikings and corruptors. Blizzard can give terran another unit to deal with the colossi, like an anti air tank. Shoots down broodlords too, and looks awesome when it sets up. And zerg, well I am sure they woud love to have a unit that is not the corruptor.
|
Patch 1.3 is where everything changed for protoss which happened in may, which is also when the balance of power shifted significantly. Protoss went from being the strongest race lategame (thanks to kydarian amulet) to being the weakest (thanks to no kydarian amulet). I kinda wish they gave us amulet back, but even if it's a slightly weaker version (15 energy instead of 25).
I think win rates might change soon, but not significantly.
|
I think a few people have pointed it out, but they really need to rescale the y axis because as it is now these graphs are rather visually misleading. I think they should just graph the difference in win rate between the different races since that seems to be what most people are interested in when it comes to reading these graphs.
I also don't get the point of fitting a cubic curve to the data. Unless you have some substantive reason to expect the rate of change in the winrates to change three times, it's just totally arbitrary to choose a 3rd order polynomial. The thing is, every time you increase the degree of the fit by one, it will always fit the data better because you're allowing the line to "bend" at one more location. You can arbitrarily increase the degree of the fitted curve till it literally hits every data point, but what is the actual value of explaining a 238th degree polynomial?
I don't mean to be too harsh because I like what they're doing. But those two issues just jumped right out at me. I'd rescale the y axis and if you want some sort of trend line, use a moving average like someone else expected. If you want to get a little more sophisticated, use a spline or a lowess smoother. I also think it might be good, especially with the specific matchup graphs, to just the magnitude of the difference in winrate between the two races being plotted. I think that would be a nice way to emphasize the relationship of interest you're trying to display in the graph.
As to the sample issues that people brought up, having only half of the games in the TLPD is really not a problem in terms of sheer numbers, because you have a sufficiently high number of matches. However, this is assuming that the TLPD "misses" games randomly. If there is some sort of systematic reason that some games are not in the database, and especially if that systematic reason is related to what we're interested in here- winrates, then you have a huge problem that severely compromises how much we should "believe" our data. For example, if the database tends to not have many matches from lower level or lesser known pro gamers, we might have to question whether the sample is really representative. I'm not saying this is the case- I'm just giving an example of the kind of thing that would be a problem.
Anyways, keep up the good work
|
On October 09 2011 19:41 GhostFall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 18:42 ZaaaaaM wrote:On October 09 2011 15:39 nt-rAven wrote: protoss is just no longer cost effective, and the im quite sure blizzard knows this at a high level but protoss is still op at lower level... ever since they took out amulet (protoss at the that time i remember very clearly were the only race using ht, ghost or infestor yes this is general but it was actually a strat to go for hts unlike other races where it was just reaction) was the biggest blow to the protoss race, you can never come back after losing your entire army as protoss, it is not possible, where as other races can do it through macro (zerg) or defense (terran)... you cant as protoss its just not possible, they claim the protoss 'defensive unit' was the mothership but in reality the protoss defensive unit was always the ht that can warp in storm and prevent a push, to enable a comback and of course other races can just not attack and expand... every race except protoss has that capability now (sorry forcefeilds dont cut it defensivly)!~ Amulat removal was due to completely rapeage of everything. With 15 gates and 2 robo's you remax almost as quickly as a zerg.. No Amulet removal was completely stupid. KA was removed in march. Look at the winrates up to that point. Protoss never went above 51.7%. It gave Protoss a defender's advantage, something they desperately needed at later stages of the game as Forcefielding ramps no longer becomes an option at 3+bases. You can argue that it would've been imbalanced once players played more, and I will argue there was NOWHERE near enough data to make a change as huge as removing KA. I honestly believe blizzard did not think through the KA removal change very well. Their reasoning for its removal was they believed that Protoss late game AOE was too strong. They didn't mention specifically how it affected matchups, or how it affected compositions. they simply believed Protoss had too many late game AOE. It wasn't a balance change, it was a design decision. And they did not think very thoroughly at all of the implications it would have on balance. Regardless of balance or not, Blizzard made a huge mistake in removing KA just based on the data (specifically, the lack of data) they had at the time.
Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever.
|
On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever.
yes it did,
after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different.
On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
Maybe if Photon Canons where upgradedable to give Protoss at least some sort of additional defensive options midgame, things would be different.
Protoss can't afford to lose Units without trading them against other units. (early and midgame)
I have tried so many freestyle strategies, long before they got buffed. They are good as long as they opponent doesn't all-in you on reaction. (if you play any kind of 2 base style with the exception of Shakuras, which allows still to defend with forcefields at your natural, no other map has this luxury)
And if you stay 1 base longer then 5-7min vs. Zerg/Terran your on the losing end anyway.
Stargate is considered cheese Twilight/DT is considered cheese / all-in
the only opening that is left is either mass gateways, or robotics. Robotics makes you slow forcing you in a deathball style, while gateways lose effectiveness rapidly in midgame unless you chrono double forge.
|
On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time.
If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so.
|
Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt.
|
On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt.
I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose?
|
On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. The implication of this is that Terran just starts building units when the battle is engaged in, or a round of units finished to join the battle as it began. The fair comparison is that Protoss just warped in a wave of units before the battle, and thus has to wait for cooldown rather than getting things instantly.
You're also not taking into account things like how effective units are in varying group size.
|
On October 12 2011 06:05 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. The implication of this is that Terran just starts building units when the battle is engaged in, or a round of units finished to join the battle as it began. The fair comparison is that Protoss just warped in a wave of units before the battle, and thus has to wait for cooldown rather than getting things instantly. You're also not taking into account things like how effective units are in varying group size.
Why would that be the case? In what scenario do both players attack when they hit exactly 200 supply, that is so unrealistic, if you want to theorycraft at least don't come up with the 1 scenario out of 100 millions where protoss doesn't have an advantage.
If the protoss really maxes out and then attacks before his gates are off cooldown he's absolutely retarded because he basically nullifies his own advantage of getting to produce units faster than his opponent after the fight is over.
|
On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose?
Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s)
|
Italy12246 Posts
On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose?
The combination of marine-heavy 2rax openings (gotta play safe!) and 1base allins (gotta open greedy!) that focus around marines make early game pvt a clusterfuck in a lot of situations.
|
On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever.
|
On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s)
That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either.
|
zvt is the worst.. nice..
fuck terran.
zerg doing alright, toss is a sad panda.
Maybe I should be happy I rethought my race change to protoss from Z.
;p
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
This would only be true if the terransloses everything in the engagement and the protoss keeps the majority of his army.
But terran units with help of stim are faster than protoss units, so you always have the capacity to run away of a bad engagement or with some surivors (if the protoss forcefields your army, then you should have ghosts or sniped the sentries in the battle) and retreat to bunkers and pf, which give you the time to rebuild your army.
|
On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever.
Honest question. Are you stupid?
As I explained, back then the metagame was based on early rushes and short games, lategame only affected a small portion of all games. Now the game has evolved and more and more games get into lategame. 52% blabla.... look at the actual gameplay... being able to convert ressources into instant damage is ridiculously overpowered... you aren't actually paying for an ht, you are paying for 80dmg when warping in a high templar.
If you your only argument is "you are wrong because I say so and you make no sense derp" then I feel bad for you, because you are wasting my time.
And there is no reason to cuss at people because they disagree with you, grow up.
On October 12 2011 06:15 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. This would only be true if the terransloses everything in the engagement and the protoss keeps the majority of his army. But terran units with help of stim are faster than protoss units, so you always have the capacity to run away of a bad engagement or with some surivors (if the protoss forcefields your army, then you should have ghosts or sniped the sentries in the battle) and retreat to bunkers and pf, which give you the time to rebuild your army.
That again is assuming that the terran wins the engagement and hits every emp perfectly.But we are discussing the situation AFTER a battle, it doesn't matter how the army died, the point is that if the army is dead, terran has the hardest time to reinforce their army quickly enough. what happened before that is irrelevant, because it doesn't change this aspect of the game.
|
On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either.
Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units.
And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow.
|
On October 12 2011 06:09 Teoita wrote: The combination of marine-heavy 2rax openings (gotta play safe!) and 1base allins (gotta open greedy!) that focus around marines make early game pvt a clusterfuck in a lot of situations.
This also sounds a lot like early game ZvT. I'll second this comment and add I don't feel as though this would be a problem if it was more easily scoutable what type of opening they were doing.
"1.4.3 Patch Notes:
Fog of War revealed over Terrans who construct more then one barracks or a factory before a second command center.
Bunker Salvage Rate Reduced to 10% from 75%
MULE is now a cooldown based ability"
Sigh..... I can keep dreaming.
|
On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever.
Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed.
Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you.
You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed.
|
On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow.
Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless.
|
On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
Are you playing in like diamond level?
who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more.
|
On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more.
Never seen a late game I take it?
|
On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless.
You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt.
|
Come on guys, respond to arguments by attacking premises and revealing fallacies.
Stop attacking each other; it's frustrating to read and it's only going to aggravate you guys to the point where you'll face punishment.
|
On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more.
Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out.
|
On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed.
how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs!
This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then.
Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
|
Doko, you have to remember that because of how terran works you have to rally units. So either A) you just had units finish and they are all in your base/ heading towards where the battle just was and can be moved back or B) They are close to completing. Protoss on the other hand has a very high chance of warping in units very close into the battle using a pylon. If protoss does lose that battle then their warp in was nullified and there is no way they could get two warp ins before an attack. And Dfgj makes a good point in that protoss gateway units tend to be much less cost effective then terran units in small battles.
|
On October 12 2011 06:29 kingjames01 wrote: Come on guys, respond to arguments by attacking premises and revealing fallacies.
Stop attacking each other; it's frustrating to read and it's only going to aggravate you guys to the point where you'll face punishment. It seems to me that most people need help developing their argumentative skills. Lack of clarity also seems to cause some problems.
|
On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it.
Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z.
|
On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt.
Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple.
On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z.
At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer.
|
Who the hell cares about KA? PVT late game isn't that bad, it's just early mid game terran dominates so hard. KA wouldn't really help there anyway.
And PVT isn't as bad as zvt anyway, I'm surprised so much discussion is centered around protoss given how un-fun tvz is becoming to watch/play. I'll say it again: the core tvz unit, the marine, is just too strong and cost effective.
|
On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously.
|
On October 07 2011 22:52 RealQ wrote:Thats alot of sad zealots as usual Yeah.
|
On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. Pro balance affects every single game of Starcraft that you play. Just at low levels you cannot cite it as a reason for losing since no one plays near optimal level. I care very little about balance in the games I play but I do get pissed at seeing every single Protoss getting smashed left and right in GSL. I care about it as a spectator so don't tell me this shit doesn't affect me.
Got a question for you: You happy with the state of balance in SC2 right now?
|
On October 12 2011 06:26 Trealador wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Never seen a late game I take it?
Defining late game as 3 bases I take it?
Discussing scenarios involving poor macro, breeds poor strategy.
|
On October 12 2011 06:46 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:26 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Never seen a late game I take it? Defining late game as 3 bases I take it? Discussing scenarios involving poor macro, breeds poor strategy.
banking ressources once you are maxed has nothing to do with poor macro.... you know... it just happens.
On October 12 2011 06:46 Condor Hero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. Pro balance affects every single game of Starcraft that you play. Just at low levels you cannot cite it as a reason for losing since no one plays near optimal level. I care very little about balance in the games I play but I do get pissed at seeing every single Protoss getting smashed left and right in GSL. I care about it as a spectator so don't tell me this shit doesn't affect me. Got a question for you: You happy with the state of balance in SC2 right now? We just recently had a new patch that buffed protoss and nerfed terran. Give it time.
|
edit: sry for double post. mod pls delete
|
On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously.
then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know)
|
On October 12 2011 06:48 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:46 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 06:26 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Never seen a late game I take it? Defining late game as 3 bases I take it? Discussing scenarios involving poor macro, breeds poor strategy. banking ressources once you are maxed has nothing to do with poor macro.... you know... it just happens. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:46 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. Pro balance affects every single game of Starcraft that you play. Just at low levels you cannot cite it as a reason for losing since no one plays near optimal level. I care very little about balance in the games I play but I do get pissed at seeing every single Protoss getting smashed left and right in GSL. I care about it as a spectator so don't tell me this shit doesn't affect me. Got a question for you: You happy with the state of balance in SC2 right now? We just recently had a new patch that buffed protoss and nerfed terran. Give it time. Okay, when there are 30 Terrans, 1 Protoss, and Nestea in GSL we have your permission to speak up?
|
Reading this thread makes my brain bleed...
Before you have an argument about a scenario, at least define clearly and make sure the other person understands which scenario you are talking about.
One person is defining "lategame" as 3bases, one is defining "lategame" as maxed with surplus resources in the bank. That combined with the excessive hyperbole (sure, it might be fine IRL in a conversation, but tone doesn't carry on the Internet and people don't know whether you mean it or not) and random ad hominem attacks ruin the thread, which tbh wasn't fantastic from page 1. Stop fucking about and throwing insults at each other and start a proper discussion.
|
On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know)
But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds.
Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units.
|
On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units.
in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, have all spells already researched and enough energy, too. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used + the energy upgrade which are both quite expensive spells that take quite a while to research.
The reason that fast ghosts is a viable opening, while fast ht is a death sentence against a good terran player should tell you that such comparison never made sense but was used as QQ as you do right now.
and yet i don't see terran or zerg players asking for the removal of the storm research or the buffing of hightemplar movement speed.
|
On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units.
Warpgate cooldown?
|
On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously.
It's funny when people start talking about what "Terran" did or didn't do, as if "Terran" is some famous guy with a well-known history. "Terran? Nah, he never qq'd about anything. Just look it up on his wikipedia page. Seriously dude, me and Terran are like this -- I would know if he'd qq'd about something." lol.
What are you trying to say? That no terran anywhere has ever engaged in balance whining? If you need proof I can dig up the KA nerf thread. Plenty of terran crying in there.
|
On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used...
You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss.
the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that.
You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in.
On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown?
actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on.
|
On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote: [quote]
yes it did,
after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different.
On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote: [quote]
yes it did,
after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different.
On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on.
2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server.
|
On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote: [quote]
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time.
If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote: [quote]
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time.
If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server.
I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it?
|
On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units.
I'm not going into this whinefest, but you know that Protoss don't have infinite gaz (don't talk about late game you rarely have 8 or 10 gaz in a game) so you can't keep reinforcing ht, especially when you need to reinforce you deathball as well (Protoss units cost a lot of gaz, and hts alone are not going to win the game).
Moreover, you say it, like a storm would destroy every terran unit in the map. You can dodge storm, spread your army etc... Maybe KA is a bit imbalanced (I don't know I'm not a pro or David Kim) but KA doesn't win game the way you describe it.
|
On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it?
It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing).
It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game.
I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death).
Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost.
Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself.
|
On October 12 2011 07:22 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote: [quote]
Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed.
Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you.
You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote: [quote]
Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed.
Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you.
You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it? It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing). It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game. I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death). Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost. Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself.
Well I personally still think it's all in, because if the protoss defends the push and gets 4-5 collossus out there is absolutely nothing you can do. no medivacs, no vikings. I find it really hard to not call it an all-in when you are essentially dead if it fails. Know what I mean?
|
ipl3 final speaks for it self there is not such dis balance as people are saying it is all about skills and practice. It is easier to blame than work on what is wrong. if the dis balance were so big blizzard would do something about it. please think
|
On October 12 2011 07:25 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:22 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote: [quote]
how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs!
This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then.
Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote: [quote]
how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs!
This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then.
Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it? It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing). It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game. I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death). Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost. Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself. Well I personally still think it's all in, because if the protoss defends the push and gets 4-5 collossus out there is absolutely nothing you can do. no medivacs, no vikings. I find it really hard to not call it an all-in when you are essentially dead if it fails. Know what I mean?
Saying it is an all-in does nothing about how good the strategy is, that like saying 1-1-1 is an all-in. sure it is doesn't mean it is good as hell.
And as we all know, terran is never all-in
|
On October 12 2011 07:25 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:22 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote: [quote]
how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs!
This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then.
Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote: [quote]
how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs!
This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then.
Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.!
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it? It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing). It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game. I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death). Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost. Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself. Well I personally still think it's all in, because if the protoss defends the push and gets 4-5 collossus out there is absolutely nothing you can do. no medivacs, no vikings. I find it really hard to not call it an all-in when you are essentially dead if it fails. Know what I mean?
How are you dead if it fails? It's exactly the same as a medivac-poke. Your Starport is completed by the time you hit the P's base. You're in a position to build reactor'd vikings.
When you poke at 9:00~ with 2 medivacs, you'll kill him if he rushed collosus, and if he's not, you can THEN start making vikings..... you won't have any vikings right then.
Totally the same as arriving @ 9:30 with 2 medivacs, finding out he's rushing storm (kill him), or he's not rushing it, go home, get ghosts.....
The only difference is you can't drop-harass as you do your first push.
|
On October 12 2011 07:34 Trusty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:25 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:22 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote: [quote]
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously.
then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote: [quote]
QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously.
then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it? It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing). It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game. I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death). Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost. Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself. Well I personally still think it's all in, because if the protoss defends the push and gets 4-5 collossus out there is absolutely nothing you can do. no medivacs, no vikings. I find it really hard to not call it an all-in when you are essentially dead if it fails. Know what I mean? How are you dead if it fails? It's exactly the same as a medivac-poke. Your Starport is completed by the time you hit the P's base. You're in a position to build reactor'd vikings. When you poke at 9:00~ with 2 medivacs, you'll kill him if he rushed collosus, and if he's not, you can THEN start making vikings..... you won't have any vikings right then. Totally the same as arriving @ 9:30 with 2 medivacs, finding out he's rushing storm (kill him), or he's not rushing it, go home, get ghosts..... The only difference is you can't drop-harass as you to your first push.
I want to see a build order for that please. I just think it's nonsensical to get ghosts instead of medivacs, unless he has mass sentry of course, but that's a different story. I wouldn't actually want to use this build as a standard tvp build, it seems really bad against quick collossus and you can easily die to overstimming, like you said. And I'm sure it's very easy to scout the build and if the toss sees you are going ghosts and not medivac he can just use his entire army to defend the push since he doesn't have to fear any drops at all.
So yeah I can kind of understand why koreans are not using the build anymore. I didn't actually know that you get a starport behind that aswell, but it seems really counter intuitive, this build is clearly designed to deal damage, but the fact that you build a starport behind it indicates that you are setting up for a longer game, in that case however it would make more sense to go for medivac first because you can drop and harrass, whereas this seems more like a "i hope i can do some damage" attack.
|
one of the biggest problem i have with HT is Ghost, yea they need longer to spawn, but they get their spells after time and dont need to research EMP same with infestor
why not do the same with HT just Remove the strom upgrade thats 200/200 less and dunno 90? seconds research time
that makes HT openings way more vaiable, because at the moment you cant face a terran mid to lategame witheout AOE, how do you get AOE HT or Colo HT is to hard to get so colosi.
just my opinion but i guess it will never cange
|
On October 12 2011 07:42 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:34 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:25 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:22 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:17 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:15 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote: [quote] then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote: [quote] then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. 2-base 2-ghost timing is far from all-in, it was very common 2~ months ago on KR server. I don't know the exact build order, but I'm pretty sure it auto-loses to collossus doesn't it? It hits before HT's with storm, or 2x Collosus (from 2 base). It will lose to 1/2gate Robo -> Nexus -> Collosus rush, but you can usually kill 1gate Robo FE with 2rax opening (which is a good opening for 2-ghost timing). It's similar to 2x medivac poke/drop, scan before you engage, if he's sentry heavy you can probably just win the game. I think it went out of favour, since it's as easy to retreat if he's gone quick charge, or you get flanked (stim yourself to death). Also the lack of 8:00 medivacs means he doesnt need to keep some stalkers @ main to protect from drop when you move out with 2-ghost. Edit: I'm obviously a P player, and I don't know the exact BO, just that it can hit between 8:30 to 9:30 ish. Haven't seen it in a while on KR server myself. Well I personally still think it's all in, because if the protoss defends the push and gets 4-5 collossus out there is absolutely nothing you can do. no medivacs, no vikings. I find it really hard to not call it an all-in when you are essentially dead if it fails. Know what I mean? How are you dead if it fails? It's exactly the same as a medivac-poke. Your Starport is completed by the time you hit the P's base. You're in a position to build reactor'd vikings. When you poke at 9:00~ with 2 medivacs, you'll kill him if he rushed collosus, and if he's not, you can THEN start making vikings..... you won't have any vikings right then. Totally the same as arriving @ 9:30 with 2 medivacs, finding out he's rushing storm (kill him), or he's not rushing it, go home, get ghosts..... The only difference is you can't drop-harass as you to your first push. I want to see a build order for that please. I just think it's nonsensical to get ghosts instead of medivacs, unless he has mass sentry of course, but that's a different story. I wouldn't actually want to use this build as a standard tvp build, it seems really bad against quick collossus and you can easily die to overstimming, like you said. And I'm sure it's very easy to scout the build and if the toss sees you are going ghosts and not medivac he can just use his entire army to defend the push since he doesn't have to fear any drops at all. So yeah I can kind of understand why koreans are not using the build anymore. I didn't actually know that you get a starport behind that aswell, but it seems really counter intuitive, this build is clearly designed to deal damage, but the fact that you build a starport behind it indicates that you are setting up for a longer game, in that case however it would make more sense to go for medivac first because you can drop and harrass, whereas this seems more like a "i hope i can do some damage" attack.
Here's a thread discussing how to beat it. It's from August.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=251189
I find it surprising you're a high masters Terran player, and you've not heard/used/seen it? It was all the rage at one of the previous MLGs.
|
On October 12 2011 00:06 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote:On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote:On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they apparently made casual games unplayable... Fixed that for you. I highly doubt they were UNPLAYABLE, just not as fun I suspect. But yes, sometimes Blizzard does have to think about casual players, but if they want it to become a really successful E-sport, they're going to have to make some sacrifices when it comes to casuals.
You realize almost all of the money Blizzard makes form this game comes from sales to casual players right?
|
On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote: [quote]
yes it did,
after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different.
On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote: [quote]
yes it did,
after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different.
On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off.
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on.
Here's how I see it. I don't exactly understand what you're saying, so please correct me.
First, let me give you some times from liquipedia.
Marine: 25 build time. Marauder: 30 build time. Ghost: 40 build time.
Zealot: 38 cooldown. Stalker: 42 cooldown. Sentry: 37 cooldown. HT: 55 cooldown.
To make my example simple, lets say you and me are playing a bronze league PvT, where I have warp gate, and you have one barracks. I plan on going stalker high templar, you plan on going marauder ghost.
Your ghost building isn't done, so you start a marauder. My templar archives isn't done, so I start a stalker. Interestingly, after 5 seconds, I have a stalker and you have nothing. However, after 30 seconds, you have a marauder and I still only have the stalker.
I still have 12 seconds left on cooldown, and you start another maruader. Now, at 42 seconds since you started your first marauder, my cooldown is done, and at 47 seconds I have 2 stalkers and you have one marauder. Then, at 1 minute you have 2 marauders and I have 2 stalker. What's more, I have to wait until 1 minute 24 until I can start warping in stalker number 3, and until 1 minute 29 until I get it.
Let's do one more. Since I started warping in my stalker at 1 minute 24, I have to wait until 2 minutes 6 seconds to start warping in stalker 4, and finally I get the stalker at 2 minutes 11 seconds. Let's use numbers to make this clear.
At 0:00 P: warpgate T: Barracks At 0:05 P: stalker T: Nothing At 0:30 P: stalker T: marauder (25 second difference). At 0:47 P: 2 stalker T: marauder At 1:00 P: 2 stalker T: 2 marauder (13 second difference) At 1:29 P: 3 stalker T: 2 marauder At 1:30 P: 3 stalker T: 3 marauder (1 second difference) At 2:00 P 3 stalker T FOUR MARAUDERS At 2:11 P 4 stalkers T: 4 marauders (-11 seconds).
Now lets talker about templar and ghost. Ghosts build in 40 seconds. Templars build in 55. That's a difference of 15 seconds. The difference between Stalker and Marauder was only 12. So, what you'll see with templar ghost production will mirror the analysis done above, except Ghosts will "catch up" to the templar production even faster because of the greater time differential between Ghosts and Templar.
Thus, the difference doesn't get bigger between cycles, it gets smaller.
Now, what does this mean for a real game? After all, T will have more than 1 barracks with a tech lab, and P will have more than one gate. Well, the limiting factor for P warping in templars is gas. So what you should really compare is barracks with tech labs for T and gateways which Toss has enough to build HT from.
Basically, if T has more tech lab barracks than P has gas supported gateways then over time ghost production will get pretty far ahead of templar production... eh. Not too much you can get from that.
Also, obviously I can chrono boost and you get to mule, which complicates things further.
Anyways, you said the difference got bigger, I think it gets smaller. But I ain't great with math. Care to explain?
|
oh i always liked the double nuke build . About this double ghost build it was to easily scouted and the toss could punish it in various ways. You could put it on par with the raven push, you have to get the raven to pdd at the toss home ramp to do nice damage.
for the poster above: Techlab barracks 200/25 warpgate 150. So you have 4 gates and the terran 3 baracks with labs. And well building stalkers against marauders, disqualified. Just don't be so black and white when going into theory, you have to think about every aspect. (i didn't here, for me the ghost is at a small advantage but thats why his cost is higher and he is more specialized)
|
On October 12 2011 07:57 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote: [quote]
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time.
If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote: [quote]
That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers.
Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time.
If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on.
it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. Here's how I see it. I don't exactly understand what you're saying, so please correct me. First, let me give you some times from liquipedia. Marine: 25 build time. Marauder: 30 build time. Ghost: 40 build time. Zealot: 38 cooldown. Stalker: 42 cooldown. Sentry: 37 cooldown. HT: 55 cooldown. To make my example simple, lets say you and me are playing a bronze league PvT, where I have warp gate, and you have one barracks. I plan on going stalker high templar, you plan on going marauder ghost. Your ghost building isn't done, so you start a marauder. My templar archives isn't done, so I start a stalker. Interestingly, after 5 seconds, I have a stalker and you have nothing. However, after 30 seconds, you have a marauder and I still only have the stalker. I still have 12 seconds left on cooldown, and you start another maruader. Now, at 42 seconds since you started your first marauder, my cooldown is done, and at 47 seconds I have 2 stalkers and you have one marauder. Then, at 1 minute you have 2 marauders and I have 2 stalker. What's more, I have to wait until 1 minute 24 until I can start warping in stalker number 3, and until 1 minute 29 until I get it. Let's do one more. Since I started warping in my stalker at 1 minute 24, I have to wait until 2 minutes 6 seconds to start warping in stalker 4, and finally I get the stalker at 2 minutes 11 seconds. Let's use numbers to make this clear. At 0:00 P: warpgate T: Barracks At 0:05 P: stalker T: Nothing At 0:30 P: stalker T: marauder (25 second difference). At 0:47 P: 2 stalker T: marauder At 1:00 P: 2 stalker T: 2 marauder (13 second difference) At 1:29 P: 3 stalker T: 2 marauder At 1:30 P: 3 stalker T: 3 marauder (1 second difference) At 2:00 P 3 stalker T FOUR MARAUDERSAt 2:11 P 4 stalkers T: 4 marauders (-11 seconds). Now lets talker about templar and ghost. Ghosts build in 40 seconds. Templars build in 55. That's a difference of 15 seconds. The difference between Stalker and Marauder was only 12. So, what you'll see with templar ghost production will mirror the analysis done above, except Ghosts will "catch up" to the templar production even faster because of the greater time differential between Ghosts and Templar. Thus, the difference doesn't get bigger between cycles, it gets smaller. Now, what does this mean for a real game? After all, T will have more than 1 barracks with a tech lab, and P will have more than one gate. Well, the limiting factor for P warping in templars is gas. So what you should really compare is barracks with tech labs for T and gateways which Toss has enough to build HT from. Basically, if T has more tech lab barracks than P has gas supported gateways then over time ghost production will get pretty far ahead of templar production... eh. Not too much you can get from that. Also, obviously I can chrono boost and you get to mule, which complicates things further. Anyways, you said the difference got bigger, I think it gets smaller. But I ain't great with math. Care to explain?
Sweet it works for 1 gate vs 1 raxx. Please enlighten me when its 8 gate vs 3-4 raxx. Does it still add up? 16 vs at best 8 sounds fair. Because when you get the units doesn't matter, it's the fact that we can make more quicker down the line. Since when do Terran have same production as protoss? That's good.
|
|
On October 12 2011 08:06 Trealador wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:57 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. Here's how I see it. I don't exactly understand what you're saying, so please correct me. First, let me give you some times from liquipedia. Marine: 25 build time. Marauder: 30 build time. Ghost: 40 build time. Zealot: 38 cooldown. Stalker: 42 cooldown. Sentry: 37 cooldown. HT: 55 cooldown. To make my example simple, lets say you and me are playing a bronze league PvT, where I have warp gate, and you have one barracks. I plan on going stalker high templar, you plan on going marauder ghost. Your ghost building isn't done, so you start a marauder. My templar archives isn't done, so I start a stalker. Interestingly, after 5 seconds, I have a stalker and you have nothing. However, after 30 seconds, you have a marauder and I still only have the stalker. I still have 12 seconds left on cooldown, and you start another maruader. Now, at 42 seconds since you started your first marauder, my cooldown is done, and at 47 seconds I have 2 stalkers and you have one marauder. Then, at 1 minute you have 2 marauders and I have 2 stalker. What's more, I have to wait until 1 minute 24 until I can start warping in stalker number 3, and until 1 minute 29 until I get it. Let's do one more. Since I started warping in my stalker at 1 minute 24, I have to wait until 2 minutes 6 seconds to start warping in stalker 4, and finally I get the stalker at 2 minutes 11 seconds. Let's use numbers to make this clear. At 0:00 P: warpgate T: Barracks At 0:05 P: stalker T: Nothing At 0:30 P: stalker T: marauder (25 second difference). At 0:47 P: 2 stalker T: marauder At 1:00 P: 2 stalker T: 2 marauder (13 second difference) At 1:29 P: 3 stalker T: 2 marauder At 1:30 P: 3 stalker T: 3 marauder (1 second difference) At 2:00 P 3 stalker T FOUR MARAUDERSAt 2:11 P 4 stalkers T: 4 marauders (-11 seconds). Now lets talker about templar and ghost. Ghosts build in 40 seconds. Templars build in 55. That's a difference of 15 seconds. The difference between Stalker and Marauder was only 12. So, what you'll see with templar ghost production will mirror the analysis done above, except Ghosts will "catch up" to the templar production even faster because of the greater time differential between Ghosts and Templar. Thus, the difference doesn't get bigger between cycles, it gets smaller. Now, what does this mean for a real game? After all, T will have more than 1 barracks with a tech lab, and P will have more than one gate. Well, the limiting factor for P warping in templars is gas. So what you should really compare is barracks with tech labs for T and gateways which Toss has enough to build HT from. Basically, if T has more tech lab barracks than P has gas supported gateways then over time ghost production will get pretty far ahead of templar production... eh. Not too much you can get from that. Also, obviously I can chrono boost and you get to mule, which complicates things further. Anyways, you said the difference got bigger, I think it gets smaller. But I ain't great with math. Care to explain? Sweet it works for 1 gate vs 1 raxx. Please enlighten me when its 8 gate vs 3-4 raxx. Does it still add up? 16 vs at best 8 sounds fair. Because when you get the units doesn't matter, it's the fact that we can make more quicker down the line. Since when do Terran have same production as protoss? That's good. It's your own fault if you don't build enough rax, not balance's fault. If the toss has enough money to get 8 gates up, you have enough to get 2 rax with reactor and 4 rax with tech lab.
|
On October 12 2011 08:06 Trealador wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 07:57 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 07:10 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 07:04 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. in a world were Ghosts and HT are build at the same time, yes. how is that a fair comparison, when Ghosts Academy can be build after a Rax/techlab = the first building a terran usually builds, while Storm is the highest techtree that needs additional research of the spell to be even able to be used... You can't get ghosts earlier than High templars usually, it's usually the protoss who goes high templar or collossus and the terran then responds with either vikings or ghosts. it's not vikings and ghosts, it's vikings or ghosts. You can't build the ghost academy earlier either because you really need starport tech for medivacs, you can't play bio without medivacs, so if the protoss goes for high templars, he has the advantage that you need to spend alot of ressources in stargate tech, you have to... you cant just go bio+ghost with no medivacs mid-lategame vs. protoss. the only strategy where T can get a ghost faster than a P can get a high templar is a ghost rush, but that is all-in and the terran has no medivacs when he does that. You as a protoss player should really know that,this is pretty much how every TvP plays out, Terran scouts robo or templar archives, then goes vikings or ghosts. no way you can get ghosts before the protoss can get high templars, unless you play without medivacs, and the only build that let's you do that is a ghost rush and that is an all in. On October 12 2011 07:07 -_- wrote:On October 12 2011 06:59 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:53 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:43 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:19 Trealador wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote: [quote] How can you even say such a thing?
First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph?
Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Next time read the actual statement before saying Terran imba. KA is needed. Terran have gotten several nerfs and protoss have gotten several buffs since those days. Not to mention metagame shift. If you really don't see the imbalance of KA then there really is no help for you. You are lucky I took the time to paraphrase his statement for the special ed. how was KA imbalanced, when HT vs. Ghost is heavily Ghost favored these days even if they drain only 100 energy today compared to back then? Terrans these days easily back 1-2k gas mid to late game, which show cases that Ghosts were affordable back then. Ghosts did drain all energy of a unit back then ffs! This just show cases how bad people played back then, not using different units etc. Even back then, Protoss was almost every techtree exect carriers. And game was considered Protoss favored, but the reason is it was only favored by P because Terran didn't use fucking ghosts, and don't tell me the change of ressources from 150/150 to 200/100 changed the usability. Infestor Timing pushes, all were possible back then, Roach Ling all-ins possible back then. Instead we have got an unbelievable QQ fest from Terran and Zerg unisono, and still the winrates of Terran never dropped below 50% despite all the supposed imbalances.! QQ fest from terran? dude terrans are the only players who really never actually complain about the other races, it used to be zergs who always complained about imbalance and now it's protoss. at no point did terran qq about anything, seriously. then you should reread, balance threads from back then. It funny how not even once KA was discussed before regarding balance, but the moment it appeared in the balance changes, every terran jumped on the qq-train. (despite not using ghosts properly as we today know) But it's still a massive difference. ghosts have to be produced in barracks for 50 seconds and then they have to physically run/walk to the rest of the army. Which can depending on the map and army positioning take up to 30 seconds aswell. But I'll be nice and go with 10 seconds. So that's 1 minute until a ghost is ready for battle and can actually emp the high templar. Now compare this with the high templar. pylon in the middle of the map behind the army - 5 second warp in - 3 seconds to get close enough to cast the storm. 8-10 seconds until it can actually cast it's spell. Chances are that the terran is eventually going to run out of emps/ghost energy when you can constantly reinforce with new templars every few seconds. Seriously how should a terran ever break a protoss again when he can just warp in emergency high templars with "full" energy? Just compare the production time of the two units. Warpgate cooldown? actually makes the difference even larger. if we are talking about one production cycle the overall difference is 50 seconds. if we are talking about 2 production cycles the difference is 65 seconds. 3 production cycles its 80 seconds... and so on. Here's how I see it. I don't exactly understand what you're saying, so please correct me. First, let me give you some times from liquipedia. Marine: 25 build time. Marauder: 30 build time. Ghost: 40 build time. Zealot: 38 cooldown. Stalker: 42 cooldown. Sentry: 37 cooldown. HT: 55 cooldown. To make my example simple, lets say you and me are playing a bronze league PvT, where I have warp gate, and you have one barracks. I plan on going stalker high templar, you plan on going marauder ghost. Your ghost building isn't done, so you start a marauder. My templar archives isn't done, so I start a stalker. Interestingly, after 5 seconds, I have a stalker and you have nothing. However, after 30 seconds, you have a marauder and I still only have the stalker. I still have 12 seconds left on cooldown, and you start another maruader. Now, at 42 seconds since you started your first marauder, my cooldown is done, and at 47 seconds I have 2 stalkers and you have one marauder. Then, at 1 minute you have 2 marauders and I have 2 stalker. What's more, I have to wait until 1 minute 24 until I can start warping in stalker number 3, and until 1 minute 29 until I get it. Let's do one more. Since I started warping in my stalker at 1 minute 24, I have to wait until 2 minutes 6 seconds to start warping in stalker 4, and finally I get the stalker at 2 minutes 11 seconds. Let's use numbers to make this clear. At 0:00 P: warpgate T: Barracks At 0:05 P: stalker T: Nothing At 0:30 P: stalker T: marauder (25 second difference). At 0:47 P: 2 stalker T: marauder At 1:00 P: 2 stalker T: 2 marauder (13 second difference) At 1:29 P: 3 stalker T: 2 marauder At 1:30 P: 3 stalker T: 3 marauder (1 second difference) At 2:00 P 3 stalker T FOUR MARAUDERSAt 2:11 P 4 stalkers T: 4 marauders (-11 seconds). Now lets talker about templar and ghost. Ghosts build in 40 seconds. Templars build in 55. That's a difference of 15 seconds. The difference between Stalker and Marauder was only 12. So, what you'll see with templar ghost production will mirror the analysis done above, except Ghosts will "catch up" to the templar production even faster because of the greater time differential between Ghosts and Templar. Thus, the difference doesn't get bigger between cycles, it gets smaller. Now, what does this mean for a real game? After all, T will have more than 1 barracks with a tech lab, and P will have more than one gate. Well, the limiting factor for P warping in templars is gas. So what you should really compare is barracks with tech labs for T and gateways which Toss has enough to build HT from. Basically, if T has more tech lab barracks than P has gas supported gateways then over time ghost production will get pretty far ahead of templar production... eh. Not too much you can get from that. Also, obviously I can chrono boost and you get to mule, which complicates things further. Anyways, you said the difference got bigger, I think it gets smaller. But I ain't great with math. Care to explain? Sweet it works for 1 gate vs 1 raxx. Please enlighten me when its 8 gate vs 3-4 raxx. Does it still add up? 16 vs at best 8 sounds fair. Because when you get the units doesn't matter, it's the fact that we can make more quicker down the line. Since when do Terran have same production as protoss? That's good.
There's a thousand different complications in a real game. Doko100, however, made a specific and interesting post which I responded to. In doing so, I feel like I'm getting a better idea about Terran and Protoss production work. Frankly, I'm not making a balance comment. I'm just trying to understand the game better.
|
Does anyone know why there are so few games played in September? it went from 3 months of around 3000 games per month to not even 1000
|
This is clearly a very important issue that warrants everyone going full mad.
|
On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW.
Thanks, this does put things in perspective.
|
You want to easily correct PvT with one single easy small change!
1.5 patch note:
Terran:
Burrow ability on supply depot has been removed!
Reason: It will now be possible for a toss with a stalker/zealot to scout a 1-1-1 and be sure 100% it is actually really a 1-1-1 because the units will managed to get inside. So, this way, the protoss will be able to prepare adequatly to the upcoming super strong early game push of the terran (that is basically what, build anything on 1base that is units in a combo of choice from your 3 different production facilities) and then push with half your scv to victory or to your loss. Now, with this nerf, protoss will be able to keep on par with the terran on economy/preparation since the terran wont be able to get easy wins with build order advantage (as it is almost impossible for toss since terrans have Scans, early pressure, banshees and medivacs that all come very rapidly to get a good scouting info on the toss).
|
It's funny how every time Khaydarin Amulet is brought up, Terrans pretend that Protoss have some form of gas MULE.
|
On October 12 2011 10:57 pure_protoss wrote: You want to easily correct PvT with one single easy small change!
1.5 patch note:
Terran:
Burrow ability on supply depot has been removed!
Reason: It will now be possible for a toss with a stalker/zealot to scout a 1-1-1 and be sure 100% it is actually really a 1-1-1 because the units will managed to get inside. So, this way, the protoss will be able to prepare adequatly to the upcoming super strong early game push of the terran (that is basically what, build anything on 1base that is units in a combo of choice from your 3 different production facilities) and then push with half your scv to victory or to your loss. Now, with this nerf, protoss will be able to keep on par with the terran on economy/preparation since the terran wont be able to get easy wins with build order advantage (as it is almost impossible for toss since terrans have Scans, early pressure, banshees and medivacs that all come very rapidly to get a good scouting info on the toss).
??
How does this change things. Of they want to wall off they can still wall off and just lift off the barracks or salvage the Bunker
|
|
On October 12 2011 11:42 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 10:57 pure_protoss wrote: You want to easily correct PvT with one single easy small change!
1.5 patch note:
Terran:
Burrow ability on supply depot has been removed!
Reason: It will now be possible for a toss with a stalker/zealot to scout a 1-1-1 and be sure 100% it is actually really a 1-1-1 because the units will managed to get inside. So, this way, the protoss will be able to prepare adequatly to the upcoming super strong early game push of the terran (that is basically what, build anything on 1base that is units in a combo of choice from your 3 different production facilities) and then push with half your scv to victory or to your loss. Now, with this nerf, protoss will be able to keep on par with the terran on economy/preparation since the terran wont be able to get easy wins with build order advantage (as it is almost impossible for toss since terrans have Scans, early pressure, banshees and medivacs that all come very rapidly to get a good scouting info on the toss). ?? How does this change things. Of they want to wall off they can still wall off and just lift off the barracks or salvage the Bunker
well walling off will be sifficantly harder to do. Also, bunkers are a set back in economy and macro, which is not the case of supply depot. Also, supply depot will now be in the middle of the terran base and be an obstacle to their units which would be a small nerf against drops
|
On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving
Was going to post this. We'll need actually closer to 3 months post-patch for the trends to balance back out. It was already pretty common knowledge that Terran was king and Zerg rolled Protoss post-1.3.
|
Anyone else noticed that zerg winrate went above toss after fungal DPS was buffed?
It's still pretty retarded though that terran has never been 2nd place in the win rate.
|
On October 12 2011 12:52 Conquerer67 wrote: Anyone else noticed that zerg winrate went above toss after fungal DPS was buffed?
It's still pretty retarded though that terran has never been 2nd place in the win rate.
According to the graph, Terrans were second in June. Zerg had a 50.5% winrate, and Terran merely 50.4%. Worst period in Terran history, no doubt.
|
On October 12 2011 06:07 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:05 Dfgj wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. The implication of this is that Terran just starts building units when the battle is engaged in, or a round of units finished to join the battle as it began. The fair comparison is that Protoss just warped in a wave of units before the battle, and thus has to wait for cooldown rather than getting things instantly. You're also not taking into account things like how effective units are in varying group size. Why would that be the case? In what scenario do both players attack when they hit exactly 200 supply, that is so unrealistic, if you want to theorycraft at least don't come up with the 1 scenario out of 100 millions where protoss doesn't have an advantage. If the protoss really maxes out and then attacks before his gates are off cooldown he's absolutely retarded because he basically nullifies his own advantage of getting to produce units faster than his opponent after the fight is over. You're assuming a scenario where battles occur after both players are maxed, which is exactly what you're telling me not to do - taking 1 scenario. The vast majority of battles do not take place in this situation. Waves of units are constantly being warped in/rallied based on build and cooldown times.
Again, you're still not considering how armies scale when you talk about recovering after an engagement.
|
On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. This makes so little sense that it is not even funny....especially at that level of play, it is is so hard for Z/P to scout, and so easy to get scouted...i am more often then not dying to some weired shit from T and not because of the actual game...
Also, when you get the advantage, at that level, zerg usually has to rely on starving T, because you can rarely brake him, unless food is like 2x.
|
On October 12 2011 14:40 Gotmog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. This makes so little sense that it is not even funny....especially at that level of play, it is is so hard for Z/P to scout, and so easy to get scouted...i am more often then not dying to some weired shit from T and not because of the actual game... Also, when you get the advantage, at that level, zerg usually has to rely on starving T, because you can rarely brake him, unless food is like 2x. Also cause they're only having the hardest time due to the players' fault (bad macro/mechanics/execution, etc.), which is why balancing for us is kind of stupid IMO, because you'd be balancing to compensate for faulty mechanics, not cause anything is inherently bad/weak/broken. edit- it's analogous to stress testing products as hard as you can, not just for normal use, because it's hard to balance/make the same product (game) for a certain skillset when it varies the most; for SC balancing at the highest level means that everything is theoretically balanced if everyone plays well; if winrates aren't balanced at lower leagues (assuming theoretical balance) then it's due to that set of players' not playing optimally, not cause the game needs to be changed.
|
On October 12 2011 06:15 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Honest question. Are you stupid? As I explained, back then the metagame was based on early rushes and short games, lategame only affected a small portion of all games. Now the game has evolved and more and more games get into lategame. 52% blabla.... look at the actual gameplay... being able to convert ressources into instant damage is ridiculously overpowered... you aren't actually paying for an ht, you are paying for 80dmg when warping in a high templar. If you your only argument is "you are wrong because I say so and you make no sense derp" then I feel bad for you, because you are wasting my time. And there is no reason to cuss at people because they disagree with you, grow up. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:15 pPingu wrote:That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. This would only be true if the terransloses everything in the engagement and the protoss keeps the majority of his army. But terran units with help of stim are faster than protoss units, so you always have the capacity to run away of a bad engagement or with some surivors (if the protoss forcefields your army, then you should have ghosts or sniped the sentries in the battle) and retreat to bunkers and pf, which give you the time to rebuild your army. That again is assuming that the terran wins the engagement and hits every emp perfectly.But we are discussing the situation AFTER a battle, it doesn't matter how the army died, the point is that if the army is dead, terran has the hardest time to reinforce their army quickly enough. what happened before that is irrelevant, because it doesn't change this aspect of the game. So you're basing your entire argument on a fabrication. That's a brilliant way to put your way across, and you even begin your post questioning my intelligence. I'm sorry but I thought you were supposed to base assumptions on actual data rather than fabrications (me showing how protoss never went above 52% w:l, and you making up "oh well games never went over 12 mins back then lolol".
Great to see another zerg player though, nice to meet you.
|
Seeing how the game has evolved, I think that Blizzard could reverse the warpgate nerf and bring back amulet, without touching any other race, and that would fix a lot of things.
|
On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW. THANK YOU SO MUCH ! Protoss complaining about being down for 2 months or so is ridiculous.
|
On October 12 2011 17:38 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW. THANK YOU SO MUCH ! Protoss complaining about being down for 2 months or so is ridiculous.
*ahem*
Look at may, and watch the trend from there.
|
On October 12 2011 15:13 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:15 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Honest question. Are you stupid? As I explained, back then the metagame was based on early rushes and short games, lategame only affected a small portion of all games. Now the game has evolved and more and more games get into lategame. 52% blabla.... look at the actual gameplay... being able to convert ressources into instant damage is ridiculously overpowered... you aren't actually paying for an ht, you are paying for 80dmg when warping in a high templar. If you your only argument is "you are wrong because I say so and you make no sense derp" then I feel bad for you, because you are wasting my time. And there is no reason to cuss at people because they disagree with you, grow up. On October 12 2011 06:15 pPingu wrote:That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. This would only be true if the terransloses everything in the engagement and the protoss keeps the majority of his army. But terran units with help of stim are faster than protoss units, so you always have the capacity to run away of a bad engagement or with some surivors (if the protoss forcefields your army, then you should have ghosts or sniped the sentries in the battle) and retreat to bunkers and pf, which give you the time to rebuild your army. That again is assuming that the terran wins the engagement and hits every emp perfectly.But we are discussing the situation AFTER a battle, it doesn't matter how the army died, the point is that if the army is dead, terran has the hardest time to reinforce their army quickly enough. what happened before that is irrelevant, because it doesn't change this aspect of the game. So you're basing your entire argument on a fabrication. That's a brilliant way to put your way across, and you even begin your post questioning my intelligence. I'm sorry but I thought you were supposed to base assumptions on actual data rather than fabrications (me showing how protoss never went above 52% w:l, and you making up "oh well games never went over 12 mins back then lolol". Great to see another zerg player though, nice to meet you.
What part of "if both players lose their entire maxed armies, it takes terran the longest to get their first set of defensive units out" don't you understand?
yet again your argument is :" you are wrong because I say so".I won't waste more time arguing with 12 year olds from now on. If you don't understand the premise don't even bother to pretend that you understand the conclusion.
On October 12 2011 14:40 Gotmog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. This makes so little sense that it is not even funny....especially at that level of play, it is is so hard for Z/P to scout, and so easy to get scouted...i am more often then not dying to some weired shit from T and not because of the actual game... Also, when you get the advantage, at that level, zerg usually has to rely on starving T, because you can rarely brake him, unless food is like 2x.
Funnily enough, what I said is actually proven by global statistics and not a set of 900 more or less randomly chosen games.
|
On October 12 2011 17:53 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 15:13 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 06:15 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:10 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. Protoss however can warp in units 5 seconds after the fight is over. Then you have a 25 second cooldown on the warpgate and need to wait another 5 seconds for your warp in. All in all protoss gets almost twice the amount of units after a maxed battle compared to terran in almost the exact same time. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. it wasn't defender's advantage, it was defender's advantage based on a ridiculously imbalanced mechanic. Yes protoss didn't dominate every matchup back then, but the main reason for that was that timing attacks (mainly terran) were about 10x stronger compared to now, stim got nerfed (I'm not even sure by how much,like a minute?) and protoss players lost alot of games early on because they were too bad to forcefield properly or simply defend the pushes. The game however has evolved now, back then it was mainly rush games in every matchup, now we are at a point in SC2 where we have more macro games than rush games almost. If you give protoss kaydarin back the race is gonna be broken again lategame. might aswell just give protoss an auto-win button after the 20 minute mark or so. How can you even say such a thing? First of all, protoss units are known to be not as good as their zerg/terran counterparts when it comes to efficiency based upon cost when speaking with gateway units. Secondly, "If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again" yet protoss has never ever gone above 52% win ratio...what on earth are you basing your assumption on? Players like idrA? Did you read the graph? Please post something that is actually relevant to the thread and not just shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Honest question. Are you stupid? As I explained, back then the metagame was based on early rushes and short games, lategame only affected a small portion of all games. Now the game has evolved and more and more games get into lategame. 52% blabla.... look at the actual gameplay... being able to convert ressources into instant damage is ridiculously overpowered... you aren't actually paying for an ht, you are paying for 80dmg when warping in a high templar. If you your only argument is "you are wrong because I say so and you make no sense derp" then I feel bad for you, because you are wasting my time. And there is no reason to cuss at people because they disagree with you, grow up. On October 12 2011 06:15 pPingu wrote:That is so wrong I don't even know what to say. If anything terran is the race who has the hardest time after losing an engagement. Yes you have bunkers, but you just lost all your units and it takes units 25 - 30 seconds to build. So after a big maxed out engagement, they are completely defenseless for at least 25 seconds even if they didn't salvage their bunkers. This would only be true if the terransloses everything in the engagement and the protoss keeps the majority of his army. But terran units with help of stim are faster than protoss units, so you always have the capacity to run away of a bad engagement or with some surivors (if the protoss forcefields your army, then you should have ghosts or sniped the sentries in the battle) and retreat to bunkers and pf, which give you the time to rebuild your army. That again is assuming that the terran wins the engagement and hits every emp perfectly.But we are discussing the situation AFTER a battle, it doesn't matter how the army died, the point is that if the army is dead, terran has the hardest time to reinforce their army quickly enough. what happened before that is irrelevant, because it doesn't change this aspect of the game. So you're basing your entire argument on a fabrication. That's a brilliant way to put your way across, and you even begin your post questioning my intelligence. I'm sorry but I thought you were supposed to base assumptions on actual data rather than fabrications (me showing how protoss never went above 52% w:l, and you making up "oh well games never went over 12 mins back then lolol". Great to see another zerg player though, nice to meet you. What part of "if both players lose their entire maxed armies, it takes terran the longest to get their first set of defensive units out" don't you understand? yet again your argument is :" you are wrong because I say so".I won't waste more time arguing with 12 year olds from now on. If you don't understand the premise don't even bother to pretend that you understand the conclusion. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 14:40 Gotmog wrote:On October 12 2011 06:37 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:24 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:18 Drowsy wrote:On October 12 2011 06:11 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:08 sjschmidt93 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 05:59 Drowsy wrote: Marines are too strong. Nerfing their damage output (in the form of attack speed) would solve pvt and zvt. I don't understand why marines would be a problem in PvT, I also think that they might be slightly too strong in TvZ (at pro level that is, below grandmaster nobody has good enough micro to make marines look imbalanced). I never felt like Marines were a good unit in PvT anyway, Marauders yes, but Marines in PvT? Storms and Collossus completely destroy marines. Also if you decrease the rate of fire what's terran bio gonna do against chargelots? Just auto-lose? Have you seen Puma play TvP (no not his 1-1-1s) That isn't evidence for imbalance though.Marines are easily countered by HTs and collossi in big numbers and stalkers in small numbers. Marines definitely aren't imbalanced in PvT and "puma's pvt" definitely doesn't count as evidence either. Easily countered by Hts and colossus lol. If toss makes it to the point where 6+ colossi with stalker support and a decent economy, he can usually win. Marines make it pretty damn difficult to reach this point because they are insanely cost efficient tier 1 units. And besides, we KNOW marines are imbalanced in zvt. It's kind of ridiculously obvious and has pretty much been that way since release. PVT is obviously terran favored, if they just nerfed marines to fix tvz it would be worth it and it would very likely alleviate pvt imbalance in the same blow. Well I heard forcefields are good and stalkers fare quite well against marines in small numbers aswell. Don't really see what your point is. Midgame you get collossi, early game you have forcefields and stalkers to counter big marine numbers. Or let me guess, we are assuming that the terran has dropped your mineral line with marines and killed all your probes so you are massively behind right now... or no he sniped the robo and you can't build collossi... are there any other worst case scenarios you can come up with so that marines can actually be overpowered in PvT? Just wondering, I can.... I could also come up with scenarios where zerglings might seem overpowered or sentries....."I have no ghosts - i have no burrow...imba imba". Completely pointless. You still haven't addressed zvt. Marines are clearly a problem there, and given the fact that terran is way ahead in pvt, marines being nerfed to fix only ZvT probably still wouldn't break pvt. Like I said, Marines might be imba in high level TvZ. I won't say they definitely are, because I'm not a fan of imba-whining, I think most people use statistics like the ones in this thread to justify their losses rather than look at their own gameplay and improve it. "Oh I play race x and he plays race y and race y has won GSL so therefore race y is imba and there is no way I can win"... seriously none of us play at the same level as top players do and in lower leagues terran (especially masters- platinum) terran is having a very hard time. I personally play in low-mid master league, so I don't know about you guys but pro-balance doesn't affect me at all and I'm sure it doesn't affect any of you guys either. Stop blaming imbalance for losses or switch races, simple. On October 12 2011 06:36 Condor Hero wrote:On October 12 2011 06:30 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 06:25 Trusty wrote:On October 12 2011 05:53 doko100 wrote:On October 12 2011 04:11 freetgy wrote:On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. If protoss gets kaydarin back it would basically be an impossible lategame for both Z and T again. You kill the protoss army, no problemo, 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you... you kill all of them.... no problemo.... 5 warped in high templars with enough energy for storm are waiting for you.... you kill all of them... no problemo.... and so on. Are you playing in like diamond level? who the hell is going to stock 750 gas? Please exaggerate more. Really? Stop rushing every game and play maxed vs. maxed army and maybe you'll find out. Terrans have had it hardest since beta, we get it. Arguing with hypotheticals with people you don't know almost always gets ugly. We should just let the results speak for themselves: based on these statistics, T > P and T > Z. At pro level yes, casual level (everything below grandmaster) no. especially in masters-platinum terran is having the hardest time of all 3 races and I'm sure you are no pro, so does pro balance really affect you? give me an honest answer. This makes so little sense that it is not even funny....especially at that level of play, it is is so hard for Z/P to scout, and so easy to get scouted...i am more often then not dying to some weired shit from T and not because of the actual game... Also, when you get the advantage, at that level, zerg usually has to rely on starving T, because you can rarely brake him, unless food is like 2x. Funnily enough, what I said is actually proven by global statistics and not a set of 900 more or less randomly chosen games.
Sorta not really. You speak almost as if when a maxed Terran engages, he loses his entire army -instantly- and only begins reproducing as the protoss marches to his front door, which is BS. Terran bio production on a decent economy is insane.
The engagements can be fairly drawn out unless you actually just stand still and let a protoss throw zealots at you while shredding your ball apart with full impact storms and colossus shots. Assuming you're kiting and actually producing, you'll have reinforcements waiting at home. If you actually traded horribly and didn't kill all of the colossus/HT, well, you're probably dead on even economies. The protoss will only be reinforcing with more gateway units which bio tears apart.
The protoss is only going to be warping in gateway units. If the colossus/HT die, well, GL to the protoss when the Terran comes marching along. I don't really care to entertain the protoss is UP vs terran argument, but it's ridiculous to suggest Terran actually doesn't produce units throughout a properly micro'ed, high level engagement unless he was absolutely smashed and lost; in which case, the issue certainly isn't the nature of terran production vs protoss production.
|
If you've ever played on the KR server at masters+ level you will understand why people say Protoss right now is UP.
|
One thing to note is that this seems to be the international version, and because of the lack of games the statistically variance is actually bigger than some of or all of the gap of racial win percentage.
|
On October 12 2011 17:40 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 17:38 T0fuuu wrote:On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW. THANK YOU SO MUCH ! Protoss complaining about being down for 2 months or so is ridiculous. *ahem* Look at may, and watch the trend from there. You know that they are still at roughly 50pc in GSTL yeah? Its not an individual league but it shows if protoss are given the right maps and the right opponents they can do just as well as any other race. Taking samples of games from gsl where maps arent even picked by the players half the time isnt the best way to look at winrate.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/leagues/1555_GSTL_Season_1
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
The number of games is absolutely insufficient. It's insufficient to the point that I'd call these stats irrelevant, by all due respect and appreciation of effort that the TL stuff puts in them.
|
On October 12 2011 21:28 Ganseng wrote: The number of games is absolutely insufficient. It's insufficient to the point that I'd call these stats irrelevant, by all due respect and appreciation of effort that the TL stuff puts in them.
No one cares about ladder stats. These are the stats from the tournaments where the big boys play, and they are the only stats that matter.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
You know I care about stats on ladder, I don't want to be a-moved to death every single time because I'm not as good as Korean pros and I can't split marines and target fire banelings and kite and land EMPs and drop like them and macro up at the same time. There are millions of us, and we are supposed to have fun playing, not just watching the game. And more than that, believe it or not, there were more than 900 games in tournaments in September, much more.
|
Russian Federation304 Posts
oh god blizzard bring back the KA.... im sure even with KA protoss not make more than 50% win rate now -_-
|
On October 13 2011 15:28 Ganseng wrote: You know I care about stats on ladder, I don't want to be a-moved to death every thingle time because I'm not as good as Korean pros and I can't split marines and target fire banelings and kite and land EMPs and drop like them and macro up at the same time. There are millions of us, and we are supposed to have fun playing, not just watching the game. And more than that, believe it or not, there were more than 900 games in tournaments in September, much more.
This doesn't matter. If you don't do the stuff you're talking about than you deserve to lose and should improve before complaining about anything. Also it's just foolish to think that terran has to do more to win and only sounds like you're whining.
|
On October 12 2011 21:22 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 17:40 ExO_ wrote:On October 12 2011 17:38 T0fuuu wrote:On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW. THANK YOU SO MUCH ! Protoss complaining about being down for 2 months or so is ridiculous. *ahem* Look at may, and watch the trend from there. You know that they are still at roughly 50pc in GSTL yeah? Its not an individual league but it shows if protoss are given the right maps and the right opponents they can do just as well as any other race. Taking samples of games from gsl where maps arent even picked by the players half the time isnt the best way to look at winrate. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/leagues/1555_GSTL_Season_1
That's a terrible example, because I can turn right around and say look at GSL, and then what happens. I think everybody would agree GSTL is a much more unique scenario than standard 1v1 tournaments.
Edit: and I would like to highlight "given the right maps and right opponents". Any race can be at 50% given those 2 things. Problem is more often than not, you won't get them
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On October 13 2011 15:49 Shorty90 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 15:28 Ganseng wrote: You know I care about stats on ladder, I don't want to be a-moved to death every thingle time because I'm not as good as Korean pros and I can't split marines and target fire banelings and kite and land EMPs and drop like them and macro up at the same time. There are millions of us, and we are supposed to have fun playing, not just watching the game. And more than that, believe it or not, there were more than 900 games in tournaments in September, much more. This doesn't matter. If you don't do the stuff you're talking about than you deserve to lose and should improve before complaining about anything. Also it's just foolish to think that terran has to do more to win and only sounds like you're whining. It sounds like Protoss are whining non-stop for a month now.
|
On October 13 2011 16:09 Ganseng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 15:49 Shorty90 wrote:On October 13 2011 15:28 Ganseng wrote: You know I care about stats on ladder, I don't want to be a-moved to death every thingle time because I'm not as good as Korean pros and I can't split marines and target fire banelings and kite and land EMPs and drop like them and macro up at the same time. There are millions of us, and we are supposed to have fun playing, not just watching the game. And more than that, believe it or not, there were more than 900 games in tournaments in September, much more. This doesn't matter. If you don't do the stuff you're talking about than you deserve to lose and should improve before complaining about anything. Also it's just foolish to think that terran has to do more to win and only sounds like you're whining. It sounds like Protoss are whining non-stop for a month now.
Protoss have been whining for a lot longer than a month, and they will continue to do so until Blizzard does something to bring them more up to par with the other races. Look at the win stats and see if you can tell why...
|
I really don't get the "Toss need KA for late game defenders advantage" arguement.
Yes, Terran can retreat to bunkers, but aren't there photon cannons at the protoss expansions? They cost only minerals after all. Personally as a terran would trade bunkers and missile turrets for photon cannons in a heart beat. A defensive structure that costs no gas and no supply, is errected reasonable fast and shoots ground? Hell yeah!
You say PF is soooo good? PF costs 150/150 and the opportunity cost of 3 SCVs (that the constant MULE from an orbital would have provided. I would say it's fair to equate that with 4 photon cannons. With a full chargelot/archon warpin those 4 cannons will fare as well against most surviving terran armies as a PF with one round of bio troops coming after 15 secs.
I think a protoss has already provided us with the example, why terran needs 1.5 min to catch up with protoss production on equal rax/gateway count, though for some reason the protoss doesn't use chronoboost. He also failed to mention the fact that gateways that are being camped are still useful, because the reinforcements can group up at any pylon without problems whereas terrans suffer heavy losses as their units leave the raxes in little groups.
The moment the forge is a natural part of a BO is the moment the protoss defenders advantage exceeds the terran's.
Note: I'm just commenting on the "Toss need KA for late game defenders advantage" arguement. I do NOT say that P>T or that T>P.
|
This is pretty much what you get when one race (Protoss) is easier to master but has a lower skill-cap while the other races are more difficult to master but have a higher skill-cap: low-level players do better than they should and pro players do worse than they should.
One kind of "solution" is to make the easier race even easier through naked buffs like +1 immortal range. But it's really hit-or-miss whether or not that effects the pro level. For example, a pro player playing at the protoss skill-cap probably saw no benefit from +1 immortal range because he's already skilled enough at micro to ensure that his immortals are always in range and target-firing appropriately.
The better kind of solution is to raise the skill-cap of the weaker race by adding new micro-intensive units and/or abilities. And that's what Blizzard is going to do in the expansion.
There are three kinds of players:
"Protoss is already strong enough, maybe too strong": You need to get better at the game.
"Protoss is underpowered, but every time blizzard buffs the race it seems to get stronger": You need to get better at the game.
"Protoss is underpowered, and none of blizzard's buffs help": You need to wait on the expansion because your problem is either playing protoss close to the race's skillcap or playing against protoss opponents who can't beat you because they are skill-capped.
|
On October 12 2011 21:28 Ganseng wrote: The number of games is absolutely insufficient. It's insufficient to the point that I'd call these stats irrelevant, by all due respect and appreciation of effort that the TL stuff puts in them.
Prove it. Since you can either do the math very fast in your head or you have it written down somewhere it should be very easy for you to show it to the rest of us, right? Or are you just another one of those "Oh I heard the word 'sample size' somewhere, better post something about it!!" guys?
Edit: Do 95%
|
Have any other zergs seen an increase in mech? In my very limited recent ladder experience the standard TvZ opening has been mass helion into mech. It is very much catching me off guard.
|
On October 13 2011 15:56 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:22 T0fuuu wrote:On October 12 2011 17:40 ExO_ wrote:On October 12 2011 17:38 T0fuuu wrote:On October 07 2011 22:44 tnud wrote:Calm the **** down. It'll be alright EDIT: Should be noted that the map pool rules a lot of the balance in BW. THANK YOU SO MUCH ! Protoss complaining about being down for 2 months or so is ridiculous. *ahem* Look at may, and watch the trend from there. You know that they are still at roughly 50pc in GSTL yeah? Its not an individual league but it shows if protoss are given the right maps and the right opponents they can do just as well as any other race. Taking samples of games from gsl where maps arent even picked by the players half the time isnt the best way to look at winrate. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/leagues/1555_GSTL_Season_1 Edit: and I would like to highlight "given the right maps and right opponents". Any race can be at 50% given those 2 things. Problem is more often than not, you won't get them Well then the game isnt broken or imbalanced. We just need better maps and a better tournament format.
GSTL is interesting because players are picked to be sent out and maps are known ahead of time. So protoss are usually sent out in the most favourable conditions. But hey whining protoss players will never want to look at data that shows protoss winning. They just want the easyway out and blame losses on the game.
|
On October 14 2011 01:51 INFDexter wrote: Have any other zergs seen an increase in mech? In my very limited recent ladder experience the standard TvZ opening has been mass helion into mech. It is very much catching me off guard.
mass hellion into mech loses straight up to any kind of early roach aggression and since so many zergs do that on ladder it won't be really popular.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
|
On October 15 2011 00:11 pPingu wrote: Korean added
Thanks!
hmm, pretty much turned out the way I expected unfortunately
|
On October 12 2011 21:28 Ganseng wrote: The number of games is absolutely insufficient. It's insufficient to the point that I'd call these stats irrelevant, by all due respect and appreciation of effort that the TL stuff puts in them.
Statistically, the games are significant if they represent a fair sample of the level that the study is aimed at describing. My only complaint is that the data is dominated by less prestigious tournaments than say, MLGs and GSLs. That said, it's a pretty fair representation of which races are winning more at a high level, which is literally what the measure is. It's not concrete proof of any sort of game imbalance or anything.
|
On October 13 2011 15:33 insolentrus wrote: oh god blizzard bring back the KA.... im sure even with KA protoss not make more than 50% win rate now -_-
IMO more protoss problems stem from the early game
having said that terran drops have way too much reward for the risk all throughout the game
KA would even that out (assuming you are not on cooldown when they drop)
Interesting fact: your first HT with KA costs more than teching to and building a mothership
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On October 15 2011 00:21 Zealot Lord wrote:Thanks! hmm, pretty much turned out the way I expected unfortunately
Don't thank me but the guy who does all of this
|
i normally wouldnt, but thats pathetic, even the its only "few games" argument gets lined out if u count the last 3 months together. i mean WTF.
|
On October 15 2011 01:01 Cillas wrote: i normally wouldnt, but thats pathetic, even the its only "few games" argument gets lined out if u count the last 3 months together. i mean WTF.
It's been since May, so that's 5 months. ANd October isn't going to be any better.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On October 15 2011 01:01 Cillas wrote: i normally wouldnt, but thats pathetic, even the its only "few games" argument gets lined out if u count the last 3 months together. i mean WTF.
The "few games" argument would only work if the winrates were irregular, but here it's constant
|
I like how in Korea PvZ never had a 50+% winrate on average for P, but Blizzard still nerfed Protoss to hell and buffed Zerg just as much...
I know there's a small sample size, but still, what the hell. The only reason Protoss was doing well outside of Korea was because the top Zergs weren't on par with the Koreans and hadn't figured out the deathball style yet. So IdrA, Artosis et al complained about it, all their Bronze followers jumped on the bandwagon and got the changes to make PvZ "balanced".
|
On October 15 2011 01:21 SeaSwift wrote: I like how in Korea PvZ never had a 50+% winrate on average for P, but Blizzard still nerfed Protoss to hell and buffed Zerg just as much...
I know there's a small sample size, but still, what the hell. The only reason Protoss was doing well outside of Korea was because the top Zergs weren't on par with the Koreans and hadn't figured out the deathball style yet. So IdrA, Artosis et al complained about it, all their Bronze followers jumped on the bandwagon and got the changes to make PvZ "balanced". Well at the peak of Zerg "qq" Blizzard didn't actually nerf Protoss, they just buffed Zerg (Infester)--though I think most Zergs these days have realized how powerful the unit actually is and might have preferred the old Infestor as they use it more for the Stun and ITs than the Fungal DPS
|
SC2Statistics just posted the Korean graph edit : and op has updated it already :p
|
On October 15 2011 01:45 MrCon wrote: SC2Statistics just posted the Korean graph edit : and op has updated it already :p
And it's quite drepessing since the winrate for PvZ was never good for protoss and still protoss was nerfed 1312312 times to help Z. Ty idra and artosis.
|
I don't think people are mad enough.
ABORTION IS MURDER.
There, that should get things going in the right direction.
|
On October 15 2011 02:10 Velvet_Llama wrote: I don't think people are mad enough.
ABORTION IS MURDER.
There, that should get things going in the right direction.
That made me LOL in real life. Thanks for that, llama.
|
I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population.
Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.
Amazing. Just, amazing.
Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl
|
On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl
Amazing that Bashiok(not a dev, a community manager BTW) is saying the truth? Look at korean PvZ when P was OP. And still players like Destiny and idra QQd and QQd until P was nerfed. And yeah what Bashio is saying is true, no matter how much statistics are shown, once the SC2 players get into the mindset of something is OP they won't change their mind.
|
On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl
Oh God. If that's really how Blizzard feel about SC2 balance, we're in for some tough times ahead. Sad Zealot may become a manic depressive...
|
On October 15 2011 02:40 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl Amazing that Bashiok(not a dev, a community manager BTW) is saying the truth? Look at korean PvZ when P was OP. And still players like Destiny and idra QQd and QQd until P was nerfed. And yeah what Bashio is saying is true, no matter how much statistics are shown, once the SC2 players get into the mindset of something is OP they won't change their mind.
Most of us are not like Destiny or Idra, those two are habitual QQ'rs who would whine about anything. Most of us see proven racial imbalance at the highest level and think 'what can be done about this?' Its just amazing because Blizzard seem happy to ignore statistic but then accuse people who discuss proven facts of 'ignoring' information. Its also amazing that he would use the SC2 player base as an example in a completely different game, it shows how highly they regard us.
And my mistake on Bashiok.
|
I have never understood how the blizzard statistics work
Take the following for example: Patch 2.0 comes in Protoss is removed from the game Zerg is only allowed to build zerglings Terran stays as is
Zergs all plummet on the ladder Eventually everything will balance out and there will be a 50% win rate for everyone (you are just going to have masters zerg players playing vs bronze terran players
Just because it is a 50/50 spread on wins and losses doesnt mean anything because their system is designed to make it so people win 50% of the time.
In the above example, obviously any zerg player that gets to gold level would be incredibly more skilled than the terran counterpart
obvious imbalance, but someone lookign at only that statistic would conclude that the game is balanced?
|
On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl
It's not that I question their statistics, just the way they are presented. Lumping Diamond/Masters/GM into one number makes that number pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see the win rates for just diamond, just masters, and just grandmasters. Also, win rates for games under 12 minutes and games over 12 minutes. It's not that people don't trust the numbers, they are just presented so poorly.
|
On October 15 2011 02:50 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl It's not that I question their statistics, just the way they are presented. Lumping Diamond/Masters/GM into one number makes that number pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see the win rates for just diamond, just masters, and just grandmasters. Also, win rates for games under 12 minutes and games over 12 minutes. It's not that people don't trust the numbers, they are just presented so poorly.
As has been mentioned before, their system is designed to give people a 50% win rate, so most match ups having close to 50% is not suprising. Thats why I think its much better to look at pro games.
|
On October 15 2011 02:50 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl It's not that I question their statistics, just the way they are presented. Lumping Diamond/Masters/GM into one number makes that number pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see the win rates for just diamond, just masters, and just grandmasters. Also, win rates for games under 12 minutes and games over 12 minutes. It's not that people don't trust the numbers, they are just presented so poorly.
Ya, no-one is saying the numbers are wrong we are saying the numbers don't prove anything and they are esentially useless
blizzard has the abiltiy to present us with good nubmers, but either chose not to are dont know how (I do question their competence sometimes).
|
On October 15 2011 02:49 Roxy wrote: I have never understood how the blizzard statistics work
Take the following for example: Patch 2.0 comes in Protoss is removed from the game Zerg is only allowed to build zerglings Terran stays as is
Zergs all plummet on the ladder Eventually everything will balance out and there will be a 50% win rate for everyone (you are just going to have masters zerg players playing vs bronze terran players
Just because it is a 50/50 spread on wins and losses doesnt mean anything because their system is designed to make it so people win 50% of the time.
In the above example, obviously any zerg player that gets to gold level would be incredibly more skilled than the terran counterpart
Matchmaking system pairs you with people regardless of MU.
In your hypothetical world lets take Greg the Zerg, he is very talented but he is held back by his race, he starts laddering in Bronze league and it goes this way:
W v Z W v Z W v Z L v Z but he cheesed anyways L v T L v T W v Z L v T L v T
His MU winrates?
ZvZ 80% ZvT 0%
His overall winrate that day 50%
|
On October 15 2011 02:50 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl It's not that I question their statistics, just the way they are presented. Lumping Diamond/Masters/GM into one number makes that number pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see the win rates for just diamond, just masters, and just grandmasters. Also, win rates for games under 12 minutes and games over 12 minutes. It's not that people don't trust the numbers, they are just presented so poorly.
They Lump GMs and masters only no?
And if it was GM only we would get to the same impasse that this statistics threads awlays get:
"not enuff sample size" "ladder does not matter"
And its not like GM don't get Matched up against High Master players. And why not take into account short games? Cheese and all ins form a part of the state of the game. And yeah "its not like people don't trust their numbers" look at the thread when they were released, a lot of people were saying that the numbers were fixed, that some conspiracy was going on blah blah blah.
People will never be happy with the numbers unless they all reach exact 50%(impossible) or that they prove their own viewpoints. I mean not everybody is that way but look back at when P were OP(both T and Z complaining.. a LOT) the numbers for the P MUs were around 50% and yet people denied those numbers because they didn't comply with their own views.
|
I think there's too much argument in this thread.
Statistically it's impossible to ignore that Protoss have been doing poorly in Korea for the last few months (unless you're just really that stubborn), but crying about it doesn't really help.
Those who play Protoss say "Protoss is underpowered". Those who play Terran or Zerg say "Protoss players suck" or it's "Too little games have been played". It's really going nowhere.
|
if i post what im thinking right now i may be in for a ban so... ill try to do it without nerd rage.
clearly there is some problem with what this statistics show us. the balance team still has a lot of work to do.
|
On October 15 2011 03:13 K3Nyy wrote: I think there's too much argument in this thread.
Statistically it's impossible to ignore that Protoss have been doing poorly in Korea for the last few months (unless you're just really that stubborn), but crying about it doesn't really help.
Those who play Protoss say "Protoss is underpowered". Those who play Terran or Zerg say "Protoss players suck" or it's "Too little games have been played". It's really going nowhere.
Exactly. To be honest this is all that has been show. P are doing badly.
|
On October 15 2011 03:35 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 03:13 K3Nyy wrote: I think there's too much argument in this thread.
Statistically it's impossible to ignore that Protoss have been doing poorly in Korea for the last few months (unless you're just really that stubborn), but crying about it doesn't really help.
Those who play Protoss say "Protoss is underpowered". Those who play Terran or Zerg say "Protoss players suck" or it's "Too little games have been played". It's really going nowhere.
Exactly. To be honest this is all that has been show. P are doing badly.
To be honest all it shows me is that Terran has had about a 5% win advantage over both other races for an entire year with over 25,000 games factored in.
Then a bunch of terrans trying to act like the numbers are inconclusive. If zerg or protoss had a 5% win lead over terran for just a month or two, terrans would be in an uproar, let alone the entire first year of the game.
|
On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl
This is enraging. I just want to be clear, I have no complaint to Bashiok himself, because he's just saying what Blizzard thinks, and if anything I am thankful to him for his honesty. But the attitude from Blizzard is disgusting. No, things are not alright, despite what their ladder win/loss records tell them. If there is a problem at the highest levels of play (which I believe they admitted), then there is a problem with the game. If Master level and below players all have 50% win/loss record in their match ups, then it can only be attributed to the ladder system matching opponents in such a way to produce these results. They have stated that their system strives to produce 50% win/loss records for each match up, as well as for each player. I am glad that the ladder experience appears balanced to the participants, but there is a very serious problem here, and Blizzard needs to address it before there will be no Protoss left in the Korean Pro scene.
Saying that the community is at disconnect with reality and just cry no matter what is gravely mistaken. I think it is Blizzard who are at a disconnect with reality. The fact that David Kim admitted to not follow GSL only emphasizes this. Sadly I think posting such things will only make the people responsible at Blizzard be less forthcoming with the community, instead of improving their pulse on the game.
|
On October 15 2011 03:01 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:50 Reborn8u wrote:On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl It's not that I question their statistics, just the way they are presented. Lumping Diamond/Masters/GM into one number makes that number pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see the win rates for just diamond, just masters, and just grandmasters. Also, win rates for games under 12 minutes and games over 12 minutes. It's not that people don't trust the numbers, they are just presented so poorly. They Lump GMs and masters only no? And if it was GM only we would get to the same impasse that this statistics threads awlays get: "not enuff sample size" "ladder does not matter" And its not like GM don't get Matched up against High Master players. And why not take into account short games? Cheese and all ins form a part of the state of the game. And yeah "its not like people don't trust their numbers" look at the thread when they were released, a lot of people were saying that the numbers were fixed, that some conspiracy was going on blah blah blah. People will never be happy with the numbers unless they all reach exact 50%(impossible) or that they prove their own viewpoints. I mean not everybody is that way but look back at when P were OP(both T and Z complaining.. a LOT) the numbers for the P MUs were around 50% and yet people denied those numbers because they didn't comply with their own views.
A small sample size is better than unrepresentative one. If I wanted to measure whether blacks were promoted as frequently as other races, I wouldn't lump together blacks and whites because not enough blacks were up for promotions.
|
this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that?
|
On October 15 2011 06:23 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 02:33 Trowa127 wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this quote, but thought it was pretty important to show. This is a blue post (developer post) on the WoW forums regarding some questionable clear percentages for their latest raid dungoen. This is what the dev - Bashiok - said about revealing numbers to the Starcraft 2 population. Bottom line is that no matter what numbers we show you, it's not going to make any situations 'better'. From time to time we show StarCraft II players literal win/loss %, as accurate as they can possibly be pulled from the source itself, and they're either ignored (because players simply don't want to believe their experiences are "wrong") or laughed at as being some underhanded plot to feed them misinformation.Amazing. Just, amazing. Source - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/202894/135-of-all-wow-players-completed-normal-fl This is enraging. I just want to be clear, I have no complaint to Bashiok himself, because he's just saying what Blizzard thinks, and if anything I am thankful to him for his honesty. But the attitude from Blizzard is disgusting. No, things are not alright, despite what their ladder win/loss records tell them. If there is a problem at the highest levels of play (which I believe they admitted), then there is a problem with the game. If Master level and below players all have 50% win/loss record in their match ups, then it can only be attributed to the ladder system matching opponents in such a way to produce these results. They have stated that their system strives to produce 50% win/loss records for each match up, as well as for each player. I am glad that the ladder experience appears balanced to the participants, but there is a very serious problem here, and Blizzard needs to address it before there will be no Protoss left in the Korean Pro scene. Saying that the community is at disconnect with reality and just cry no matter what is gravely mistaken. I think it is Blizzard who are at a disconnect with reality. The fact that David Kim admitted to not follow GSL only emphasizes this. Sadly I think posting such things will only make the people responsible at Blizzard be less forthcoming with the community, instead of improving their pulse on the game.
Probably seeing the massive growth an assuming that the majority is fine with everything. The way to deal with this is to 1) turn off the stream when the tournament is boring/has matchups you don't like at all. If viewer counts stagnate/go down and gom starts to see fewer and fewer foreign dollars then more influential people are going to be yelling at David Kim to fix the game. 2) Don't buy HoTS immediately. We're probably all going to be interested in Hots as well it'll still be fun even if there's not a worthwhile esports scene. What we can do to hurt the initial numbers though will attract some attention when they design VoidProtosswinsnow.
There are risks to this strategy and how it affects the quality of tournaments over the long run. On the flipside, this might be much too passive an easy and a more aggresive approach towards sponsors would be needed to get attention.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On October 16 2011 16:49 harhar! wrote: this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that?
Protoss is at it's weakest in the early game (overly relying on sentries to set up a safe expansion), and lategame (where ghosts and infestor/broodlord rule the day). Blizzard consistently buffs the protoss midgame (archons, immortals getting buffed, infestor nerf vs colossi, etc), thus forcing the race even more to rely on timing attacks to be in a winning position vs other races. Once those timing attacks get figured out (see zealot/archon in pvt), the race suffers even more because we end in an even worse state in the lategame whan before.
|
|
On October 16 2011 18:16 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 16:49 harhar! wrote: this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that? Protoss is at it's weakest in the early game (overly relying on sentries to set up a safe expansion), and lategame (where ghosts and infestor/broodlord rule the day). Blizzard consistently buffs the protoss midgame (archons, immortals getting buffed, infestor nerf vs colossi, etc), thus forcing the race even more to rely on timing attacks to be in a winning position vs other races. Once those timing attacks get figured out (see zealot/archon in pvt), the race suffers even more because we end in an even worse state in the lategame whan before.
Please don't respond to him, he's just flamebaiting or else extremely ignorant. All of the points he made have been covered either in this thread or in the balance discussion one, so why bother replying?
And yes, in PvX Protoss has traditionally either gone for a warpgate all-in or waited until maxed for the deathball. Warpgate all-ins have been figured out and the deathball has been nerfed (or found out to be not as good as people thought). Thus, Protoss is kind of at a loose end. The only hope in PvZ is the Hero/Sage/JYP harassment style, but I'm not convinced that it is the final solution.
That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games.
Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads.
|
On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games. Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads.
It doesn't include ladder matches... it includes online and offline cups, like gsl, zotac etc
|
On October 16 2011 18:44 rareh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games. Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads. It doesn't include ladder matches... it includes online and offline cups, like gsl, zotac etc
Fair enough - I withdraw my previous criticism.
New criticism: From where in the world are all these games taken? Does it include GSL? Does it include only EU? I can't seem to find where it covers =/
|
On October 16 2011 18:52 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:44 rareh wrote:On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games. Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads. It doesn't include ladder matches... it includes online and offline cups, like gsl, zotac etc Fair enough - I withdraw my previous criticism. New criticism: From where in the world are all these games taken? Does it include GSL? Does it include only EU? I can't seem to find where it covers =/
It includes competitions all over the world.
Don't know all of them, but for example the ones i know it does track.
Korea: GSL, MLG global invitation korea, arena of legends, the fxo koth,gstl.
Europe: Dreamhacks,assembly,fxopen,MLG global invitation eruope, go4sc2,zotac, gigabyte
NA: MLG, NASL, ipl
International: IEM, NASL open qualifiers(the one puma had to win to get to), eg masters cup
I just think statistics are not the right way to go about stuff, maps do a lot to make certain races win on certain competitions(gsl for example).
|
On October 16 2011 19:12 rareh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:52 SeaSwift wrote:On October 16 2011 18:44 rareh wrote:On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games. Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads. It doesn't include ladder matches... it includes online and offline cups, like gsl, zotac etc Fair enough - I withdraw my previous criticism. New criticism: From where in the world are all these games taken? Does it include GSL? Does it include only EU? I can't seem to find where it covers =/ It includes competitions all over the world. Don't know all of them, but for example the ones i know it does track. Korea: GSL, MLG global invitation korea, arena of legends, the fxo koth,gstl. Europe: Dreamhacks,assembly,fxopen,MLG global invitation eruope, go4sc2,zotac, gigabyte NA: MLG, NASL, ipl International: IEM, NASL open qualifiers(the one puma had to win to get to), eg masters cup I just think statistics are not the right way to go about stuff, maps do a lot to make certain races win on certain competitions(gsl for example).
I think you might be right, especially considering that on the same site we have this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb/ranking/players
Which has only one Protoss in the top 15, and only 3 in the top 32! Still, I guess the sample size for the ranking is smaller, and I don't know how they work it out.
|
On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:16 Teoita wrote:On October 16 2011 16:49 harhar! wrote: this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that? Protoss is at it's weakest in the early game (overly relying on sentries to set up a safe expansion), and lategame (where ghosts and infestor/broodlord rule the day). Blizzard consistently buffs the protoss midgame (archons, immortals getting buffed, infestor nerf vs colossi, etc), thus forcing the race even more to rely on timing attacks to be in a winning position vs other races. Once those timing attacks get figured out (see zealot/archon in pvt), the race suffers even more because we end in an even worse state in the lategame whan before. Please don't respond to him, he's just flamebaiting or else extremely ignorant. All of the points he made have been covered either in this thread or in the balance discussion one, so why bother replying? And yes, in PvX Protoss has traditionally either gone for a warpgate all-in or waited until maxed for the deathball. Warpgate all-ins have been figured out and the deathball has been nerfed (or found out to be not as good as people thought). Thus, Protoss is kind of at a loose end. The only hope in PvZ is the Hero/Sage/JYP harassment style, but I'm not convinced that it is the final solution. are you one of those guys, that read an entire topic before posting? havent met many of your sort.
also whats wrong with my point about terran beeing weaker on ladder in the not-gm leagues. thats just a fact.
teoitas answer seems somewhat legit, though i dont agree with toss being weak lategame. also it makes no sense, that the new strats which evolve from 1.4 have been already figured out. maybe the reason this time is, that the new strategies dont evolve quickly enough.
It includes competitions all over the world.[...]
i wonder why it differs so heavily from tlpd. probably all toss in the administration of tlpd!
|
On October 16 2011 19:19 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 19:12 rareh wrote:On October 16 2011 18:52 SeaSwift wrote:On October 16 2011 18:44 rareh wrote:On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:That chart includes all the leagues. To get a decent idea of balance at the highest level, you have to either look at the top end of Masters and GM or look at the GSL/other TLPD games. Seriously, ladder tells you shit about balance at a decent level, for a number of reasons that have been covered in other threads. It doesn't include ladder matches... it includes online and offline cups, like gsl, zotac etc Fair enough - I withdraw my previous criticism. New criticism: From where in the world are all these games taken? Does it include GSL? Does it include only EU? I can't seem to find where it covers =/ It includes competitions all over the world. Don't know all of them, but for example the ones i know it does track. Korea: GSL, MLG global invitation korea, arena of legends, the fxo koth,gstl. Europe: Dreamhacks,assembly,fxopen,MLG global invitation eruope, go4sc2,zotac, gigabyte NA: MLG, NASL, ipl International: IEM, NASL open qualifiers(the one puma had to win to get to), eg masters cup I just think statistics are not the right way to go about stuff, maps do a lot to make certain races win on certain competitions(gsl for example). I think you might be right, especially considering that on the same site we have this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb/ranking/playersWhich has only one Protoss in the top 15, and only 3 in the top 32! Still, I guess the sample size for the ranking is smaller, and I don't know how they work it out.
I agree that protoss is definitely the weakest race atm, but if maps were bigger and always forced to cross positions then terrans biggest weakness(mobility) would be easier to exploit and added to that terrans couldn't 1-1-1 or use early aggression as easily, this would also help zerg.
In fact its interesting that of all competitions after 1.4 IPL, IEM china, IEM NY, Code A were all won by zerg :D , code s already had so many terrans before so it would be natural, but still of all the games i watched on the playoffs terrans barely won to zerg and it always came to the last map.
|
Wait Terrans biggest weakness is mobility? In TvZ, probably due to seige tanks, but in TvP? I dunno how you can claim the bio ball is not very mobile.
|
Looks like october 2010 was way more balanced than right now lol
ninja edit: But it was only one month between a few months of T domination of course. A few months ago (may - jul) looked pretty ok.
|
On October 16 2011 19:41 dooraven wrote: Wait Terrans biggest weakness is mobility? In TvZ, probably due to seige tanks, but in TvP? I dunno how you can claim the bio ball is not very mobile.
Terran don't have warp, recall, nydus worm or creep.
Attention i am talking in big maps and cross position, in small maps terran is too overpowered, because the things i talked about don't have as much of a effect.
|
On October 16 2011 19:50 rareh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 19:41 dooraven wrote: Wait Terrans biggest weakness is mobility? In TvZ, probably due to seige tanks, but in TvP? I dunno how you can claim the bio ball is not very mobile. Terran don't have warp, recall, nydus worm or creep. Attention i am talking in big maps and cross position, in small maps terran is too overpowered, because the things i talked about don't have as much of a effect. Recall is never used, and the warp-in mechanic doesn't move armies, only reinforces, I don't think they can be compared. In comparison to Protoss in the matchup, Terran is considerably more mobile and I don't think you can really deny that.
|
On October 07 2011 23:19 Chewbacca. wrote: It's pretty crazy how much a difference there is in the win % of the pro races vs the win % of master/GMaster players on ladder.
On NA/EU Masster/GMaster level P beats Z 57% of the time while here Z beats P about 57% of the time, a complete reversal. You got the ladder results back to front, according to DB @ Blizzcon. ZvP is one of the most imbalanced matchups, statistically with a >10% advantage to Zerg at Masters and above level in Europe . The only worse matchup is PvT (in favour of Terran) in Korea.
This doesn't necessarily reflect actual balance, btw. I think PvZ is pretty close to balanced if favouring Zergies a little bit. PvT is IMO broken and ZvT is frickin HARD.
EDIT: All other matchups at all levels on all servers Blizzard considers balanced, statistically.
|
remember that one month when the matchups were almost perfect? now theyh're so bad somehow xD
On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving
this is reassuring
|
Protoss unite to find a way! If Blizzard doesn't want to we have to! :D
|
So where is the OCT stats? are they looking good for toss UP meme anymore? Post it.
|
I'm quite surprised at the ZvT o_o
I mean I complain about Terran all the time (Z player) but I though P had it way worse...
|
Lol nothing too surprising anymore. Tos is just sad.
|
On November 05 2011 15:51 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:remember that one month when the matchups were almost perfect? now theyh're so bad somehow xD Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 22:54 MorroW wrote:just give it a month with the new patch and things will start look better no need to call game imbalanced now when patch just came and in the sc1 stats u can see it constantly changing even if maps and patch is the same. its just the players builds that are evolving this is reassuring
I somehow think October isn't going to look any better for toss in Korea. Hopefully the new stats will be out soon.
|
On November 05 2011 15:51 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: remember that one month when the matchups were almost perfect? now theyh're so bad somehow xD
Terran never built Ghosts then .
Zerg players have since then got a lot better at hitting their larva injects too whilst Protoss now spends their chrono-boost better? Protoss is arguably easier to macro with so there's only so good you can get. I think protoss needs a high-skill unit that can turn thing in their favour. That way the higher levels where Protoss gets face-rolled will swing back and the lower levels where things are ok, nothing will change .
|
On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:16 Teoita wrote:On October 16 2011 16:49 harhar! wrote: this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that? Protoss is at it's weakest in the early game (overly relying on sentries to set up a safe expansion), and lategame (where ghosts and infestor/broodlord rule the day). Blizzard consistently buffs the protoss midgame (archons, immortals getting buffed, infestor nerf vs colossi, etc), thus forcing the race even more to rely on timing attacks to be in a winning position vs other races. Once those timing attacks get figured out (see zealot/archon in pvt), the race suffers even more because we end in an even worse state in the lategame whan before. Please don't respond to him, he's just flamebaiting or else extremely ignorant. All of the points he made have been covered either in this thread or in the balance discussion one, so why bother replying? He has a point though i get somewhat regular abuse from zerg/toss players in games i win with them bringing up "ghosts op" "terran ez look at gsl" people need to understand that these graphs probably dont effect them.
|
There is no point of using polynom of such low order to fit the data. It's more confusing because of that
ZvT as expected for me.
|
|
On November 05 2011 21:39 Tuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 18:32 SeaSwift wrote:On October 16 2011 18:16 Teoita wrote:On October 16 2011 16:49 harhar! wrote: this graph is retarded. plz dont include it next time for it shows wrong information. or at least make it much more precise.
it saddens me, that korean terran are so good. i on the ladder dont get shit from it and blizz will go ahead and buff toss even more. just look at sc2ranks, terran have low representation in the higher leagues and high representation in the lower leagues. also the lowest amount of points everywhere except gm.
i dont udnerstand one thing thoug: in the last patch protoss got clearly away as the winner compared to z and t and still they manage to suck even more. whats wrong with that? Protoss is at it's weakest in the early game (overly relying on sentries to set up a safe expansion), and lategame (where ghosts and infestor/broodlord rule the day). Blizzard consistently buffs the protoss midgame (archons, immortals getting buffed, infestor nerf vs colossi, etc), thus forcing the race even more to rely on timing attacks to be in a winning position vs other races. Once those timing attacks get figured out (see zealot/archon in pvt), the race suffers even more because we end in an even worse state in the lategame whan before. Please don't respond to him, he's just flamebaiting or else extremely ignorant. All of the points he made have been covered either in this thread or in the balance discussion one, so why bother replying? He has a point though i get somewhat regular abuse from zerg/toss players in games i win with them bringing up "ghosts op" "terran ez look at gsl" people need to understand that these graphs probably dont effect them.
Every damn game I get to here this GSL comparision... people are so retarded on ladder.
Diamond/Master is quite Protoss favoured in PvT, just saying - as well as TvZ on large maps with cross positions is Zerg favoured. Don't try to relate these statistics to the ladder. If you played all three races at Diamond+ niveau, you can challenge these assumptions, but don't bring your Silver league experience into it.
|
PvT was Toss favored by 1.2% last month of September according to the graph... So you people qqing about Terran should have some hope (considering the statistics for Terran don't fall in the imbalance range, which is +5% according to blizzard, but then again that is ladder).
Though PvZ is about where I would expect it... I have always had an exceptionally hard time with that match up.
|
|
|
|