My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu
Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery.
Edit: Thanks Mods!
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Ctuchik
Sweden91 Posts
My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! | ||
Megaman_X
United States164 Posts
| ||
digmouse
China6279 Posts
| ||
Peleus
Australia420 Posts
Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. | ||
Philipd122
Australia776 Posts
Korean Protoss doing well as expected. ^^ | ||
stupidhydro
United States216 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
| ||
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
| ||
HaiFiSCH26
Bulgaria91 Posts
| ||
Megaman_X
United States164 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea | ||
ActionpointTV
60 Posts
| ||
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:53 lichter wrote: Someone needs to do an analysis as to why Korean and International winrates are so different Part of the reason is the significantly lower number of games, which causes way larger fluctuations. On average, the international graph has about 5 times as many games in a month as the Korean graph. | ||
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. Yeah don't judge balance by international its just not a good idea, it should be by top tier and that's korea lol. I actually am surprised at how dominant protoss has been, I knew they were but didn't realize it was so high. Will be curious how next month turns out. | ||
Molybdenum
United States358 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. | ||
Medrea
10003 Posts
Never though I'd see the day. Should keep the balance like this for the next year to balance karma out. | ||
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
Edit: fucking lol @ medrea :p | ||
MagmaPunch
Bulgaria536 Posts
| ||
krun
23 Posts
seems pretty balanced to me | ||
Tsubbi
Germany7939 Posts
| ||
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
| ||
HavocGG
Czech Republic113 Posts
Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
The bad part is, the graph is in favor of Protoss, in PvT both in international and in the Korean scene, with bigger fluctuations depending on zone. The PvZ part is even worst in Korea then PvT, not sure what to make of it, since the past month it was in favor of zerg by a large amount, while the PvT stats where slowly going form terran favored to even and now to protoss favored. TvZ in Korea is still going strongly in Terran favor, and with Koreans really able to exercise terran's strengths in the early and mid game, much better, I think it will take a while until people realize how bad TvZ is actually going to get in the late game. I really don't give a damn about about international stats being closer to balanced, since the level of play in Korea is way higher, and now they use a very different map pool. Really curious how the next two months will look. | ||
Elem
Sweden4717 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: Also keep in mind that the international graph has weekly cups and stuff in it so not as likely to have top top tier players.The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games | ||
Antares_
Poland269 Posts
| ||
Seam
United States1093 Posts
This month P favored, last month Z, Nov-Dec P, July-Oct Z | ||
RaiZ
2813 Posts
Let's hope not. | ||
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
Medrea
10003 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:39 avilo wrote: These graphs are not surprising...it's been like this for a while, especially TvP...hopefully Blizzard does something soon. Yeah, nothing. | ||
bobsire
Canada296 Posts
| ||
Tsubbi
Germany7939 Posts
| ||
Host-
New Zealand459 Posts
| ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
PvZ looks nice on the graph since the favorite race has been changing every month since November I expect TvP to get closer to 50% next month, it looked better for the terrans in the 2nd half of the month than in the 1st half | ||
DizkYSUP
Austria22 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:27 Destructicon wrote: This doesn't surprise me at all. After seeing how the Korean Protoses have refined their play style along with some of the buffs they received over the past few months, and the nerfs to the other race, this was long overdue. The bad part is, the graph is in favor of Protoss, in PvT both in international and in the Korean scene, with bigger fluctuations depending on zone. The PvZ part is even worst in Korea then PvT, not sure what to make of it, since the past month it was in favor of zerg by a large amount, while the PvT stats where slowly going form terran favored to even and now to protoss favored. TvZ in Korea is still going strongly in Terran favor, and with Koreans really able to exercise terran's strengths in the early and mid game, much better, I think it will take a while until people realize how bad TvZ is actually going to get in the late game. I really don't give a damn about about international stats being closer to balanced, since the level of play in Korea is way higher, and now they use a very different map pool. Really curious how the next two months will look. I don´t see Protoss favored against Terran in the International graph o.o | ||
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
fiveohfive
Australia81 Posts
EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... | ||
HaiFiSCH26
Bulgaria91 Posts
| ||
PeZuY
935 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
| ||
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
Also abit dissapointing that Koreans have such a small sample pool of games, hard to draw anything from that :| | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games Good point, wanted to write the same, yet the international charts are almost PERFECT(well at least as good as it can get). Really like it . Also, ZvT is NOT broken after the nerf of ghosts, P is NOT imba anywhere now(though they are doing pretty ok now for a change.) If some months go by with similar balanced stats - who needs HotS?(jk ) | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
| ||
JonnyLaw
United States3482 Posts
No matter how the graph looks it gives someone an excuse to cry imba! International lately has been looking fairly okay. Protoss is ahead of Terran for one month in overall win/loss and 80% of the posts are whining. Terran was the top of korea and international for one year and these same people said learn to play. Just go play and have some fun. By the way, the korean one means next to nothing. One player playing well or poorly makes a huge difference in the small sample size. | ||
VoO
Germany278 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:39 Recognizable wrote: It's time they fix protoss. I don't really care what they do but they just need the race to be harder to play at not pro levels or nerf them again so it balances it out. It's just so easy to max on 3 bases and your opponent, be it T or Z has to make something happen. There is a reason protoss is the most played race in every league on every server. It is true that Protoss requires much less effort to play but the main issue is that creative play gets punished. Interesting strats like strategies like colossus/storm/sentry drop are for many people not an option anymore since turtling requires no skill at all. | ||
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
| ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:43 JonnyLaw wrote: This thread always irks me. No matter how the graph looks it gives someone an excuse to cry imba! International lately has been looking fairly okay. Protoss is ahead of Terran for one month in overall win/loss and 80% of the posts are whining. Terran was the top of korea and international for one year and these same people said learn to play. Just go play and have some fun. By the way, the korean one means next to nothing. One player playing well or poorly makes a huge difference in the small sample size. QFT. Terrans are very sensitive nowadays. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15708 Posts
Interesting. | ||
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
PvZ overall has been sickeningly volatile, even with no major balance patches affecting the mu. | ||
secretary bird
447 Posts
| ||
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:44 VoO wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:39 Recognizable wrote: It's time they fix protoss. I don't really care what they do but they just need the race to be harder to play at not pro levels or nerf them again so it balances it out. It's just so easy to max on 3 bases and your opponent, be it T or Z has to make something happen. There is a reason protoss is the most played race in every league on every server. It is true that Protoss requires much less effort to play but the main issue is that creative play gets punished. Interesting strats like strategies like colossus/storm/sentry drop are for many people not an option anymore since turtling requires no skill at all. That's exactly my point. | ||
prOxi.FighT
Australia114 Posts
| ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. I think the problem is that every terran on ladder is getting raped. Whilst this wasn't true when protoss was getting stomped on the pro levels. Protoss always has been easier to play sub GM so even if terran was OP it balanced it out with protoss just being easier to play. But now that TvP seems balanced at a pro level, all the terrans on ladder are getting destroyed. | ||
MVTaylor
United Kingdom2893 Posts
Likewise I think the international ZvT win rates again make everyone question why snipe got changed. Blizzard had almost actually achieved a near perfect 50/50 match up in TvZ and then they make a change which I am 100% sure will show the different once TLPD March gets released. Just as a general point on TLPD Korea that I think people should consider. If you think about the number of top, top, top tier Terrans there are and the number of decent Zergs then that is why the match up looks so bad. If there were more good Zergs other than DRG, NesTea, Leenock and Curious then it wouldn't look so bad as for each of them I can name five Terrans of similar or better skill level. Given how small the sample size is I'd even just state that CoCa competing in no tournaments has been detrimental (1400 TvZ's in 12 months, ~100 TvZ's a month, no CoCa, around 15 less TvZ's given KSL/ESV/GSL) so, you have TLPD International rates, where there are loads of great players split about evenly between all races, or TLPD Korea where there are loads of amazing Terrans, then Protoss and then Zerg. Having said that I obviously can't explain why PvT is so favored in Korea as it shouldn't be given my reasoning, although Protoss did have a great month in GSL.... maybe I'll just refer back to the first point in my post. | ||
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. Well.. stats aren't everything, and he definitely has a point. Protoss does get a little unstoppable when games go to 3+ bases in pvt. I remember somebody linked a graph of avg game length vs winrate in pvt and terrans had an insane advantage before like 12 minutes but then like 35% winrate in games longer than 20 minutes. Seems like there's a problem. Maps are only becoming more friendly toward long games, maybe it's time to tone down toss late game and tone down terran early game (but to a lesser degree). | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:38 Doublemint wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games Good point, wanted to write the same, yet the international charts are almost PERFECT(well at least as good as it can get). Really like it . Also, ZvT is NOT broken after the nerf of ghosts, P is NOT imba anywhere now(though they are doing pretty ok now for a change.) If some months go by with similar balanced stats - who needs HotS?(jk ) That doesn't mean shit, it doesn't matter how large the sample size is, if the quality of the sample is low. For example at the Diamond level, terrans that don't know how to split marines and/or focus fire tanks against banes, so they trade incredibly cost inefficient, however there are probably thousands of more diamond vs diamond games than pro level games. Does that mean we put any weight on the diamond games? Of course we don't! The difference between the top level in Korea and the top in EU or NA, is massive, watching the GSL and then ASUS RoG, the difference between the top Korean Toss and the rest of the Toss was mind blowing, the way they manage their armies, their bases, macro, the way they expand and pressure, was all so fundamentally different that it made the rest of the world Toss look like they here in the stone age. Another huge factor is that Korea now uses a very different map pool from the rest of the world. Korea uses exclusively tournament grade maps and have rooted out maps that where deemed to be imbalanced. A lot of EU, NA tournaments and dailies still use a couple of ladder maps like Metal or Shattered that skew balance in favor of once race or another. Consider those into your calculation more carefully next time. | ||
Mowr
Sweden791 Posts
I think the problem is that every terran on ladder is getting raped. Whilst this wasn't true when protoss was getting stomped on the pro levels. Protoss always has been easier to play sub GM so even if terran was OP it balanced it out with protoss just being easier to play. But now that TvP seems balanced at a pro level, all the terrans on ladder are getting destroyed. I do not understand why there is no statistics for the ladder for this (that I have found). We all know that terrans drop off past silver level, but if it was protoss' fault there would have to be a very clear Z<T<P situation that could confirm the argument. Not that this is very interesting for the balance of the game of course but I still find it a very interesting question. | ||
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
And the ghost nerf will probably not affect winrates, but it will affect length of games by alot. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Korean Protoss really got their strats (and stats) up... Internationally... as always, the stats are way close to 50-50 then they should be if only "pro vs pro" games did count. Lots of "Pro vs Nonpro" games that the pro wins, independent from balance make the international graphs go towards 50-50. Korean Zergs in shatters Were is our Savior? | ||
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. Hah, I like this post. International graph show Zerg and Terran even with Protoss a little lower, Korean graph shows Protoss and Terran even, with Zerg a little lower. Zerg player: International is balanced, Korean isn't. The graphs themselves seem fairly promising though. It certainly seems to be moving slowly closer to a balanced state. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:01 Destructicon wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:38 Doublemint wrote: On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games Good point, wanted to write the same, yet the international charts are almost PERFECT(well at least as good as it can get). Really like it . Also, ZvT is NOT broken after the nerf of ghosts, P is NOT imba anywhere now(though they are doing pretty ok now for a change.) If some months go by with similar balanced stats - who needs HotS?(jk ) That doesn't mean shit, it doesn't matter how large the sample size is, if the quality of the sample is low. For example at the Diamond level, terrans that don't know how to split marines and/or focus fire tanks against banes, so they trade incredibly cost inefficient, however there are probably thousands of more diamond vs diamond games than pro level games. Does that mean we put any weight on the diamond games? Of course we don't! The difference between the top level in Korea and the top in EU or NA, is massive, watching the GSL and then ASUS RoG, the difference between the top Korean Toss and the rest of the Toss was mind blowing, the way they manage their armies, their bases, macro, the way they expand and pressure, was all so fundamentally different that it made the rest of the world Toss look like they here in the stone age. Another huge factor is that Korea now uses a very different map pool from the rest of the world. Korea uses exclusively tournament grade maps and have rooted out maps that where deemed to be imbalanced. A lot of EU, NA tournaments and dailies still use a couple of ladder maps like Metal or Shattered that skew balance in favor of once race or another. Consider those into your calculation more carefully next time. There are so many factors(most subjective) to take into the equation... maps,players, korea, not korea,game length... Hell, I even can say that apart from HerO at Asus RoG, yes, those tosses are in the stone age in comparison. And even he got schooled by an exceptionally well playing POLT(very hard so on Antiga Shipyard - many consider it a pretty good T map, see what I did there?). For once the pendulum swings slightly in Protoss favor - so what? We will never be able to satisfy everybody. That´s just life. But what can be achieved is people realizing where the strengths of their respective races lie. On EVERY level. And the measurement of the stats may not be perfect, but it is consistent as far as I can tell. If you think it´s bad, be my guest and find a more accurate method, and put as much work into it as the OP. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. 300 games played in a month can't determine balance. On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. Protoss has always been overpowered. It's simply that protoss players have always been worse than their terran counterparts in the GSL, so it's taken them this long to figure out how to play the race to its fullest. | ||
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:21 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. 300 games played in a month can't determine balance. Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. Protoss has always been overpowered. It's simply that protoss players have always been worse than their terran counterparts in the GSL, so it's taken them this long to figure out how to play the race to its fullest. Oh is *that* it? Everyone besides Terrans just magically suck? Okay. My question is why you even browse the stats threads if you're gonna use logic like that. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:30 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 20:21 Dalavita wrote: On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. 300 games played in a month can't determine balance. On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. Protoss has always been overpowered. It's simply that protoss players have always been worse than their terran counterparts in the GSL, so it's taken them this long to figure out how to play the race to its fullest. Oh is *that* it? Everyone besides Terrans just magically suck? Okay. My question is why you even browse the stats threads if you're gonna use logic like that. Because it's interesting, and I like reading individual conclusions. However none of the graphs can be used to discuss balance, mainly because of internationals varying skill level and koreas small sample size that's too easily influenced by individual exceptional players, of which there are more who play terran. As a jab back to you. I think it's absurd that anyone can consider that the skill level in korea is equal at the GSL code A/S level. There's nothing magical about it. Some people are better than others, and those happen to be the terrans in the GSL. | ||
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
---- 363 games is a really really damn little sample though. - Things are going to bounce around until they address warp in. Things are going to continue to bounce around even after that though, so i'm not really too sure i care anymore either way. bouncing around is good for the game in some ways. id prefer it not be a mess though. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:21 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. 300 games played in a month can't determine balance. Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. Protoss has always been overpowered. It's simply that protoss players have always been worse than their terran counterparts in the GSL, so it's taken them this long to figure out how to play the race to its fullest. LOL loving this. Please keep it coming. | ||
Elp
Netherlands86 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games The korean statistics do mean something, you just have to take note of the standard deviation. The deviation is higher due to the smaller sample size, but if you compare the ZvP stats with the stats from last month you see a decent shift that goes beyond the margin of error. But as far as i know the error bars that are shown in the graphs should be accompanied by a confidence level, right? That seems to be missing. | ||
robih
Austria1084 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
It also doesn't warm me at all to know what each race is capable of at each ladder milestone, as long as you can strive for something better, what you can do at your level is irrelevant. A strategy that works at your level might not even work at all at the highest level just based on how crisp the micro and execution of the response is, and how tight the timings are. What bothers me is that you make the grave assumption to consider the game balanced by viewing a sample of international games and assuming the level of everyone is equal, when in fact it is not. And while the Korean sample of games is of better quality and more indicative of of balance, it is flawed as well since the number of games is smaller, though it is still a better glimpse of balance then a large but much more skewed stat. | ||
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:56 StarscreamG1 wrote: The international charts are independent from the koreans playing internationally? no, as far as I know, they just sum up the TLPD stats. In which the Korean games are included. | ||
GiftPflanZe
Germany623 Posts
| ||
Jaegeru
United Kingdom676 Posts
But because the latest patch hit at the very end of February would that impact the results of the graph much, if not at all - or would we have to wait until next month to properly see the patches impact? Grammar edit. | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:00 Jaegeru wrote: Just asking a question, But because the latest patch hit at the very end of February would that impact the results of the graph much, if not at all - or would we have to wait until next month to properly see the patches impact? Grammar edit. It did almost nothing for this month, there were not enough games played You will have to wait for next month | ||
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
Look at PvZ at Korea, it switched just because of P improving their game, and Z stagnating. We need to wait till a balance. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
Alright, in my juvenile manner(don´t judge - it´s who I am), I gladly read the news that those are the most balanced graphs (at least internationally)we have had since the release of the game. I rephrase from "PERFECT" to "PRETTY GOOD". Of course there are still many problems. BL/Infestor lategame vs T and P, the Toss response Mommaship vortex, TvP lategame. Those are the most well known issues. Until people find out more and more timings etc + more patches we will be in for an even more pleasant gaming experience. I really don´t see what beef exactly you have with my post. Is it that everything outside of Korea<<<<<<<Korea and therefore is to dismiss? I hope not, though they definitely are the benchmark for high level Sc2. | ||
Jaegeru
United Kingdom676 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:02 pPingu wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:00 Jaegeru wrote: Just asking a question, But because the latest patch hit at the very end of February would that impact the results of the graph much, if not at all - or would we have to wait until next month to properly see the patches impact? Grammar edit. It did almost nothing for this month, there were not enough games played You will have to wait for next month Thanks, I thought that would have been the case. | ||
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Totally my opinion. Metagame shifting like crazy and blizzard goes "herpderp we need to help durrr!!!" | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:04 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard needs to give more time between patches.... Look at PvZ at Korea, it switched just because of P improving their game, and Z stagnating. We need to wait till a balance. I disagree... The korean ZvP graphs have been swinging back and forth since October. The two major patches for this periode: September: Major changes: Protoss buffs: Immortal range, Warp Prism HP Zerg nerfs: Fungal, NP others: Mothership acceleration, blink research time, Overseer, Ultralisk build time November: others: upgrade cost reduction for Protoss I definatly think that Protoss got the better end in the patching, and it looks like blizzard got it somewhat right, as the winrates have been getting closer since then. Of course change of playstyles occured as well, but I absolutly think that the patches did their work. | ||
Nourek
Germany188 Posts
... or maybe we can wait a little and see where maps and "metagame" shifts take us. | ||
Gantritor
Italy112 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless. User was warned for this post | ||
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
Foreigners Zergs are doing much better vs other foreigners ! Which isn't really a surprise when you think of what great Zerg players we have on the foreinger scene. Stephano, Idra, Ret, Slush, Morrow, TLO, Sheth, Sen, Dimaga, Nerchio <3 Compared to Korea where the only Zerg's who didn't deliever a horrible performance this month are Nestea and DRG who of course are incredible beasts | ||
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. | ||
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
I really like the banshee/ viking upgrades posted right above me, I think that would be a great change. | ||
m0ck
4194 Posts
| ||
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? | ||
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:30 Gantritor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless. Hold up, hold up... You don't have the slighest clue about protoss unit control? Pre-splits, preparing sentries, templars, blinking stalkers towards vikings without losing them to a swift stim, feedbacks, storms, forcefields, guardian shield while target firing the right units. On top of this you need to keep your observers alive, so you wont lose half your army to ghosts/banshee. And to add insult to injury, you still need to place your units correctly (zealots at the front and such) and not a single time get a bad flank or a bad place to engage. Yeah, obviously we're just a-moving, unlike terrans who throw some EMPs, fly in their vikings and start to kite with their MMM... Sounds reasonable to complain about unit control. | ||
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? His suggestions arent that bad. A stalker buff vs banshees helps against the 1-1-1, and vikings will become less useless when protoss stops building colossi. I think it would also be a good change for lategame tvz where terran struggles with tech switches. What league and server are you? | ||
keglu
Poland485 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. That was probably his point to nerf Terran early game(Banshee) and buff late game (vikings). | ||
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. | ||
marcesr
Germany1383 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:05 marcesr wrote: If you look at tournament results Terran is the best race in Korea and the worst outside Korea, you cannot really fix that with patches. Well, that symptom is pretty easy to describe: 1 foreign zerg has won a major tournament outside of korea no protoss or terran has... Terran is worst race (tied with protoss) outside of korea does 1-0-0 describe anything statistically relevant? no! | ||
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:59 Kira__ wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? His suggestions arent that bad. A stalker buff vs banshees helps against the 1-1-1, and vikings will become less useless when protoss stops building colossi. I think it would also be a good change for lategame tvz where terran struggles with tech switches. What league and server are you? I'm top 25Masters on EU. And I don't claim to know everything about balance at all. But I really don't see a reason to buff viking ground damage. I can see the issue with suddenly having 10vikings (20 supply) just hanging around with nothing to shoot. But you can basicly tell 2 things from that scenario: - Your opponent made the better choice - Watching alot of terran players blindly make vikings as support to their bioball tells how bio works vs gates. They are so effecient, that you can actually spare the extra supply, if you can keep your opponent from making colos. (I realize HT's are also a huge factor in this - but looking at the viking/colos thing alone). Besides... Vikings have fine armor and health. They can still tank chargelots and archons just fine. They're not as useless as corruptors. The banshee thing would obviously be fine by me, since I'm protoss. But I think it's uncalled for. I rarely experience (see or play) terran players straight up win games on banshees anymore. | ||
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. This is a high quality post, in my opinion You're right on money with almost everything you mention | ||
aderum
Sweden1459 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:30 Gantritor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote: So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about. EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless. hahah no its not a fact. Go look at any good PvT'er and you'll see how much micro and good choices it take to win at that. | ||
keglu
Poland485 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:07 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 22:05 marcesr wrote: If you look at tournament results Terran is the best race in Korea and the worst outside Korea, you cannot really fix that with patches. Well, that symptom is pretty easy to describe: 1 foreign zerg has won a major tournament outside of korea no protoss or terran has... Terran is worst race (tied with protoss) outside of korea does 1-0-0 describe anything statistically relevant? no! Not really. For 2011, only biggest tournaments http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments non Koreans: race 1st place 2nd place Terran 2 0 Zerg 5 3 Protoss 5 5 Koreans Terran 18 11 Zerg 4 12 Protoss 4 7 | ||
m0ck
4194 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss. | ||
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:21 m0ck wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss. Are you suggesting we 4gate Terran? With Gate+Robo bust I assume you're referring to something along these lines and that only really does damage if the Terran doesn't know it's coming. Retreat lowground buildings to highground => Safe, cannot be busted anymore, still higher income than P due to double Mules. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:10 Mentalizor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. This is a high quality post, in my opinion You're right on money with almost everything you mention +1 and #1 Post here. This dude got the moves like Jagger for putting in so much good stuff in this post. | ||
m0ck
4194 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:25 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 22:21 m0ck wrote: On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss. Are you suggesting we 4gate Terran? With Gate+Robo bust I assume you're referring to something along these lines and that only really does damage if the Terran doesn't know it's coming. Retreat lowground buildings to highground => Safe, cannot be busted anymore, still higher income than P due to double Mules. No, I'm referring to the 1-gate nexus into 7gate/8gate/robo busts. This GSL season have shown you many of these games. Although the 1-basing can certainly work (as shown by hero yesterday), but is much more of a risk. | ||
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:25 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 22:21 m0ck wrote: On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss. Are you suggesting we 4gate Terran? With Gate+Robo bust I assume you're referring to something along these lines and that only really does damage if the Terran doesn't know it's coming. Retreat lowground buildings to highground => Safe, cannot be busted anymore, still higher income than P due to double Mules. Some statistics: Win Rate & Game Length: NA Playhem Edition Which show that protoss has an nice advantage in early- and late game scenarios. Where as terrans are ending games with mid game timing pushes before protoss manages to get his tech up. | ||
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
ulan-bat
China403 Posts
ZvT or TvZ 106 games 57 different players - Noblesse 8.5% (9 games) - Curious 8.5% (9 games) ZvP or PvZ 117 games 69 players - Extreme 9.4% (11 games) PvT or TvP 140 games 79 players - Tear 8.6% (12 games) | ||
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
| ||
TheTurk
United States732 Posts
| ||
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? I'm a diamond toss at EU. Thank god you were the only one who were so extremist. | ||
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
| ||
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Here is my take on the Protoss problem. Protoss requires way, way too much infrastructure and specialized units to deal damage. It starts at the very smallest level, at GW. While terrans and zergs often get into small skirmish fights in the middle of the map, in either early or mid game, you don't see that from Protoss, that is because zealot and stalker without sentry just sucks flat out. Simply put they are simply not cost effective in small numbers without support or upgrades. The only time the protoss moves across the map is for a timing push. Nothing wrong with timing pushes, except terrans and zergs have timings on top of their skirmish potential. As the game goes on even GW armies with sentries become less powerful because of production power from the zerg's larva mechanics, or cost effectiveness of terran bio with medivacs overtakes even the effectiveness of FF. So at this point Protoss has two choices, do another, stronger timing attack just before the tech and production kicks in or turtle and try to get another tech advantage in the form of storm or colossus, they need the splash to stay competitive. Rarely can the protoss apply some pressure the same way terrans and zergs can. It needs to do damage and its much riskier. Both terran and zerg can move across the map, gain awareness, vision and reaction time without an overwhelming risk of losing the army, or the consequences of that. Bio is very mobile with stim and medivacs, zergs are very mobile due to creep. If caught in an awkward position you can just retreat fast. As a protoss, once you are committed, by your own choice of unfavorable circumstances, you remain committed, and if you lose your GW army you need to build it back up to support your higher tech units. So the safer alternative, turtling, is often times more appealing. Both HT+ GW armies and Robo + GW armies are powerful in their own right, but it costs a lot to assemble, so you see a lot of turtling at this stage of the game. However to a certain extent even those combinations have weaknesses, so now Protoss moves on to the ultimate composition, combining GW armies with formidable Robo tech and HT. This is even more powerful but costs even more to get up and running and to sustain, but it is damn hard to stop. I'm not saying impossible, but its so hard that it borders on the ridiculous sometimes. Situation arise where if the execution isn't near perfect you risk losing the entire game after just 1 battle, and it then leads into more turtle and standoff situations. So, in there lies a lot of problem with the Protoss. Protoss has a hard time putting pressure early to mid game because of how specialized and inter depended their armies are, it feels like they need to commit to it, this also lead to a poor spectator experience. You won't see small zealot and stalker vs marine and marauder, or ling roach wars, because GW just sucks without sentries. But we love when we see stutter step marines vs lings, speed lings vs helions, marine splits etc. Hell, when was the last time you saw a protoss do a two pronged attack? Mid game you rarely see Toss drop very often or use SG play, because by that time it is counter-able and less effective, workers can just run away from zealots without speed, and even if you force some lost mining time, the other races do damage + force lost mining time. On the other side SG fulfills very niche roles in the early-mid game and becomes near useless after that point because of the ease of countering it or just making the investment got to waste. On the flip side a small group of bio can do a large amount of economic and infrastructural damage, even BFH drops can still be fearsome, a overlord drop can contain either banes or lings, both of which can do more damage then a zealot drop. Zerg then has the option to harass with mutas, one of their best map and zone controls, while also getting more bases and teching up and building more army, infestors can be a very creative and effective way to harass. Terran also has options with banshee play and nuke drops/harass. And again, I want to emphasize that, a lot of times when attacking/harassing, zerg and terrans have a small advantage, because they can split up their army in 2-3 areas to tax the maximum amount of multi-tasking out of a player, and force mistakes. That rarely happens against a protoss until you reach the late game. And this is because terran and zerg armies are much more effective in small groups in the early, mid and late games, while toss units only become effective in small groups in the late game. And, the worst thing that could happen, did happen. The tournaments started making maps balanced around more turtle friendly features to help out the protoss, which in turn has lead to a lot more turtle into 3 base into ultimate composition games, far more boring then other action packed maps. Instead of Protoss units being fixed so they have a higher skill cap and can work in smaller groups for the early and mid game, the reverse happened. Now, I am not by any means saying that the entire game is broken, or that protoss are beyond hope. The race, can work well in the right circumstances, its just that the right circumstances is completely boring to watch for the spectators and incredibly frustrating and taxing for the players on both sides. When we say we hate to see/ play TvP or ZvP, we aren't complaining about balance, we are complaining about the way protoss works just leads to very frustrating and unenjoyable kind of games. While the new maps and balance changes have alleviated some of the issues, they didn't address the core problems that people still complain about to this day. | ||
Kakaru2
198 Posts
| ||
Apolex
Canada103 Posts
I'm only going to look at the Korean graph. This graph doesn't take much of the patch change at the END of february into account so stop saying ghost nerfs has no effects vs zergs, even though it probably doesn't effect much. Blizz should have just left everything for a few months instead of fuking around with it every two months. It's extremely frustrating for anyone to play when they do this bullshit. | ||
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On March 03 2012 00:32 Apolex wrote: Why do they even have an international graph ... balance should only be at the highest level. I'm only going to look at the Korean graph. This graph doesn't take much of the patch change at the END of february into account so stop saying ghost nerfs has no effects vs zergs, even though it probably doesn't effect much. Blizz should have just left everything for a few months instead of fuking around with it every two months. It's extremely frustrating for anyone to play when they do this bullshit. You CAN'T just look at the Korean graph. There is so few korean tournaments, that there is not enough sample. It actually means pretty much nothing. A single player being super super good and having a 80% because he is tearing apart every one, could screw the data completly. Yes, it would be more meaningful to look at it if there was more data... but that's just not the case. International do include korean data, tho. Korean data have nothing to do with balance and pretty much only mean that Protoss had better result in the GSL. But, a single month of GSL/GSTL only don't mean anything... that's just not enough games. Looking at the average of 3 or 4 months of Korean only data would actually be way more meaningful. | ||
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? | ||
sitromit
7051 Posts
On March 03 2012 01:16 Xalorian wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 00:32 Apolex wrote: Why do they even have an international graph ... balance should only be at the highest level. I'm only going to look at the Korean graph. This graph doesn't take much of the patch change at the END of february into account so stop saying ghost nerfs has no effects vs zergs, even though it probably doesn't effect much. Blizz should have just left everything for a few months instead of fuking around with it every two months. It's extremely frustrating for anyone to play when they do this bullshit. You CAN'T just look at the Korean graph. There is so few korean tournaments, that there is not enough sample. It actually means pretty much nothing. A single player being super super good and having a 80% because he is tearing apart every one, could screw the data completly. Yes, it would be more meaningful to look at it if there was more data... but that's just not the case. International do include korean data, tho. Korean data have nothing to do with balance and pretty much only mean that Protoss had better result in the GSL. But, a single month of GSL/GSTL only don't mean anything... that's just not enough games. Looking at the average of 3 or 4 months of Korean only data would actually be way more meaningful. There are a lot of Korean tournaments now. KSL, EWM, ESV, GSL, GSTL, and the results from those are a much better indicator of balance than some crappy online euro-cup. | ||
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? And you are refering to what data? International data show that PvT is pretty much balanced... and Korean (and there is just not enough data to even judge yet. One month is just not enough) data show that Protoss are beating Zerg even more than Terran. So... yeah, whatever I guess. I do feel like Protoss will pretty much be at the higher end of the graph for a while tho. The true power of the FF is probably going to show itself soon enough. A way to completly stop any micro from your opponent is really not a good design choice. I almost hope that Protoss will be owning every zerg and terran for a complete year... this way blizzard will have no choice but to review FF and Collosus completly for HotS. Deathball of doom and forcefield are just not fun to watch. On March 03 2012 01:49 sitromit wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 01:16 Xalorian wrote: On March 03 2012 00:32 Apolex wrote: Why do they even have an international graph ... balance should only be at the highest level. I'm only going to look at the Korean graph. This graph doesn't take much of the patch change at the END of february into account so stop saying ghost nerfs has no effects vs zergs, even though it probably doesn't effect much. Blizz should have just left everything for a few months instead of fuking around with it every two months. It's extremely frustrating for anyone to play when they do this bullshit. You CAN'T just look at the Korean graph. There is so few korean tournaments, that there is not enough sample. It actually means pretty much nothing. A single player being super super good and having a 80% because he is tearing apart every one, could screw the data completly. Yes, it would be more meaningful to look at it if there was more data... but that's just not the case. International do include korean data, tho. Korean data have nothing to do with balance and pretty much only mean that Protoss had better result in the GSL. But, a single month of GSL/GSTL only don't mean anything... that's just not enough games. Looking at the average of 3 or 4 months of Korean only data would actually be way more meaningful. There are a lot of Korean tournaments now. KSL, EWM, ESV, GSL, GSTL, and the results from those are a much better indicator of balance than some crappy online euro-cup. 1100 games? You do understand how absurdly low that number is, right? That's NOT enough, Not even near. Just wait for 2-3 months and make a average of those three months from the Korean data THEN you will have something remotely relevant. Until that, no, a single month of Korean data mean nothing. 1000 replay for each match up is just not enough. I'm Zerg. I'm playing the race that is getting owned completly in Korea lately, by Terran AND Protoss. Still, it's just not enough data. In 3-4 months, if we make an average and Zerg is still geting destroyed by every race and Terran is still getting owned by Toss, then we should maybe start thinking that there is a problem. Until then, we just have to wait. The metagame will switch 2-3 times again and we will have more data, anyway. | ||
Champi
1422 Posts
T>Z, Z>P yet closely balanced Looks more and more like BW results!!! :D :D :D :D | ||
BronzeKnee
United States5207 Posts
On March 02 2012 23:48 ceaRshaf wrote: Stop the patching. The game is balanced. We can now fire David Kim. The game may be balanced, but that is only because people aren't using half the units in the game because they aren't viable. Carriers (and more broadly Stargate play), Ultras, Hydras and Terran Mech play is all need of work. | ||
kongoline
6318 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 03 2012 02:06 BronzeKnee wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 23:48 ceaRshaf wrote: Stop the patching. The game is balanced. We can now fire David Kim. The game may be balanced, but that is only because people aren't using half the units in the game because they aren't viable. Carriers (and more broadly Stargate play), Ultras, Hydras and Terran Mech play is all need of work. to be fair, Ultras are being used in TvZ quite a lot these days... might explain the horrible winrates of Zerg in this MU Terran Mech is also being used quite a lot in TvZ right now. Stargates are getting a little more popular too, but Carriers and even hydralisks to defend against Stargates are not... Also balanced... I'm not sure if we should call balance upon those stats. For all we know, we have one statistic that is terribly flawed due to nonpro players playing in a lot of matches against pros and therefore influencing the stats a lot towards 50-50 internationally, and Korean stats that might be too small of a samplesize to talk balance off them. I really hope (and believe) that blizzard has its own stats for tournaments... | ||
covetousrat
2107 Posts
| ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
That´s exactly how I feel when playing Toss. It lacks quite a lot of flexibility/mobility. Don´t get me wrong, I love playing it, but most of the time you try to defend, macro and survive instead of attacking - like Zerg but without the mobility and map awareness. Apart from certain timings where you can apply pressure or even go for the kill if you are ahead, there is really not much room to move out with many units. Protoss got bad harass units. There´s the phoenix, which works early on, but T simply got marines in their standard unit composition so it´s a dead end as a fighting unit later on, as soon as Zerg sees the phoenix a lot of queens and crawlers are out - so there you also got only a small timing window(though Zealot/VR harass @10 min mark is nice vs Zerg - if they take a quick third). Effective drops can be done either mid game with sentries/zealots(in very rare cases dts) or late game dts - especially vs zerg. Other than that? I would love to have half the various things Ts have: Reaper, Banshee, hellion, marine/marauder or pure marine drop(only thing close that can decimate a worker line that fast is storm/colossi drop - tell me which one is more cost effective?) I really don´t get the whining from all the Ts, yes late game is pretty hard, but I went from high plat to diamond(EU) in the last couple of weeks and all dia terrans sat in the storms and did NOT move. emps usually hit nothing @ that level, and people seem to have never heard of snipe. | ||
XiGua
Sweden3085 Posts
Terran has a winrate lower than 50%? Damn. Times are changing. | ||
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
and they're both unimportant but you'd think people care more about the graph featuring the best players in the world, and not the graph of foreigners. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/games#tblt-7515-2-1-DESC look at all these balancer determiners | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
Great post agree completely, I think that besides PvZ and PvT, you should also look at PvP when you want to see the flaws with protoss. That matchup shows the design problems that protoss has. I think you should post that on the battle.net forums and blizzard might see it. | ||
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
| ||
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
Or on second thought maybe more appropriately....dat small sample size. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? It is unclear, but buffing some unused units(raven) may allow for a more robust terran late game. Also, the whole "terran has problems with late game vs Protoss" is a weird. Every macro game I win against a terran involves me getting a lead and then starving them out. Attacking into a 2 base terran that is turtling is a good way to throw away a lead. So most of my games end up in the late game, but I really won when I denied their 3rd for 7 minutes straight. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
But I loathe to post any of this on battle.net forums, what's the point? The vast majority of players will not understand, they'll still be stuck in their "x race OP" mindset, they won't have the reference points and mental frame to make sense of it. And there is no guarantee Blizzard will read it, so what is the point? So some bronze noobs can come and complain to me how I don't know anything and terran or zerg are OP? No thanks. If I knew for for a fact the devs would truly read it, and that they might act upon it, I'd be happy, but I don't think that will ever happen. You need to know people to make the wheels turn. | ||
mEtRoSG
Germany192 Posts
| ||
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:04 Kira__ wrote: how come winrates for mirror matchups arent included? lol | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:06 Joedaddy wrote: Wow at the Protoss dominance for February. That's pretty nuts. Edit: fucking lol @ medrea :p As Z>P, rofl It's nice to see Protoss ahead of Terran on their graph for once. Almost never ever see that x.x Gives me hope, as a Protoss player ^^ Is this the first time Terran has technically been last, ignoring the fact that they're all pretty much neck and neck? This month looks more balanced than most months | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:03 mEtRoSG wrote: its time for the first protoss nerf in the history of sc2! :D ...yeah. First. | ||
Geo.Rion
7375 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games korean sample size to small, international sample way too varied skill level This is some nice trivia, but people seem to think it's some sort of Bible, well at least those who can't see past the numbers but still want to voice "their" "objective" opinion | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:03 mEtRoSG wrote: its time for the first protoss nerf in the history of sc2! :D You must be new here They killed manzenith | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:03 mEtRoSG wrote: its time for the first protoss nerf in the history of sc2! :D Protoss has had two of the biggest nerfs ever in the game: Khaydarin amulet removal and warp gate research time increase. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:03 Destructicon wrote: I know PvP is a really terrible MU as well and very indicative of the short comings of the race, and I've often theorized on how it could be improved as well. But I loathe to post any of this on battle.net forums, what's the point? The vast majority of players will not understand, they'll still be stuck in their "x race OP" mindset, they won't have the reference points and mental frame to make sense of it. And there is no guarantee Blizzard will read it, so what is the point? So some bronze noobs can come and complain to me how I don't know anything and terran or zerg are OP? No thanks. If I knew for for a fact the devs would truly read it, and that they might act upon it, I'd be happy, but I don't think that will ever happen. You need to know people to make the wheels turn. Yeah. PvP really needs to be fixed. I thought it would settle and become less knife-edge, less BO dependant, but instead it seems to have become more so. At least when everyone 4gated it came down to micro, now it mostly comes down to who picked the right build order. Just change Protoss a bit so that there is a stable build for PvP, that is fun to watch and doesn't straight out die to certain BOs. Don't make that the ONLY build viable, but make it so that it is the standard, and any variation on that is unusual. I don't even mind the lack of macro games. I don't mind the lack of high tech units, or big army battles. What I do mind is how notoriously ridiculous the matchup is, in terms of stability, build orders and guesswork. | ||
eighteen8
105 Posts
game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:03 mEtRoSG wrote: its time for the first protoss nerf in the history of sc2! :D Yeah the first, except for KA, warpgate research time, blink research time and voidrays, voidrays and voidrays. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer | ||
secretary bird
447 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer Balance is different for different skill levels thats just how it is. | ||
eighteen8
105 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. at first i thought: it makes sense. but: with this statement you say as well that you can only achieve the shown winrates if you are at the skill level of the top players :O you already know that this is neither possible nor can this be intended through game design. | ||
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer Or you could play Protoss instead... jk I guess people just jump into conclusions with these graphics. Balance decisions should be made using a more analytical process, not only taking into account raw numbers. My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:46 petro1987 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. Edit: Grammer Or you could play Protoss instead... jk I guess people just jump into conclusions with these graphics. Balance decisions should be made using a more analytical process, not only taking into account raw numbers. My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion. the difference being, that there were 15 (?) months of data for Terran having higher winrates, compared to 1 of Protoss right now. I agree that it's double standards to say that "the game is balanced now" while it was imbalanced last month, but for all we know is, that Protoss has been doing very well one month. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:46 petro1987 wrote: My only problem with all this is the double standard here. When these graphics were showing that Terrans were the top, the T is OP bandwagon was on full force. Now, that the graphics show that Protoss are on top, we gotta wait for more data to have any conclusion. Unfortunately, you can't argue against the Internet like it's a single person, with a coherent line of thought. Pointing at the Internet and saying "you are hypocritical!" is like pointing at your cat and saying it has fur. Kind of goes without saying, unless your cat is bald or non-existent. | ||
Ktk
Korea (South)753 Posts
Aligns with my personal experience in watching pro streams, replays, tournaments... Terrans are doing better than they appear? Kind of? | ||
SolidMoose
United States1240 Posts
On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:45 eighteen8 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. at first i thought: it makes sense. but: with this statement you say as well that you can only achieve the shown winrates if you are at the skill level of the top players :O you already know that this is neither possible nor can this be intended through game design. I did not say that. You made the argument that the game is not balanced for you, at your skill level. This means that you somehow feel that the some of the players who beat you are somehow less skilled that you, but are abusing some imbalance to win games. People make this argument all the time, that less talented players beat them and it is the games fault for this. There are parts of the game where one race has an advantage, but it is your job as a player, to be aware of these. If you have a poor win rate against a specific race, that is a bad match up. Not imbalance because you are in a specific league. More importantly, if people with higher skill levels than you can have win rates at 50%, you should be asking "why is the game not balanced for me?" You should be asking, "what can I do, at my skill level, to be more like them?" | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:10 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:03 Destructicon wrote: I know PvP is a really terrible MU as well and very indicative of the short comings of the race, and I've often theorized on how it could be improved as well. But I loathe to post any of this on battle.net forums, what's the point? The vast majority of players will not understand, they'll still be stuck in their "x race OP" mindset, they won't have the reference points and mental frame to make sense of it. And there is no guarantee Blizzard will read it, so what is the point? So some bronze noobs can come and complain to me how I don't know anything and terran or zerg are OP? No thanks. If I knew for for a fact the devs would truly read it, and that they might act upon it, I'd be happy, but I don't think that will ever happen. You need to know people to make the wheels turn. Yeah. PvP really needs to be fixed. I thought it would settle and become less knife-edge, less BO dependant, but instead it seems to have become more so. At least when everyone 4gated it came down to micro, now it mostly comes down to who picked the right build order. Just change Protoss a bit so that there is a stable build for PvP, that is fun to watch and doesn't straight out die to certain BOs. Don't make that the ONLY build viable, but make it so that it is the standard, and any variation on that is unusual. I don't even mind the lack of macro games. I don't mind the lack of high tech units, or big army battles. What I do mind is how notoriously ridiculous the matchup is, in terms of stability, build orders and guesswork. Well the first solution is to make sure BO wins are not so important. Second of all, if the matchup is to become fun to watch there needs to be a counter to collosi, or atleast something that will stop the collosi massing. The matchup is just so stale in end game. | ||
IMHope
Korea (South)1241 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. I would not do that or change units that are useful in the match up. I also do not like making more "key" units(the ghost) force the terran to rely on the placement of a few spells or denying storms. It would be better to improve unused units for terran to provide them with a more robust late game. A late game upgrade for tanks that work against shields, buff the raven or make it have less mana. Any to make the match up more interesting in the late game. | ||
hasuterrans
United States614 Posts
| ||
Archile
United States403 Posts
| ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:09 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote: On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. I would not do that or change units that are useful in the match up. I also do not like making more "key" units(the ghost) force the terran to rely on the placement of a few spells or denying storms. It would be better to improve unused units for terran to provide them with a more robust late game. A late game upgrade for tanks that work against shields, buff the raven or make it have less mana. Any to make the match up more interesting in the late game. Reduce mana for Raven, reduce the mana cost of its spells appropriately. Then increase HSM range by a little bit, and its damage by a little bit. Voila, a viable tech path for lategame TvX. | ||
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
| ||
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
besides, toss has been the underdog since... a long time. toss dominance was inevitably going to happen at some point. and yes, this is a zerg talking. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
| ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
disturbing PvT differential... of course it's possible for T to win, but there's an underlying unit mismatch.. imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. even immortals are completely broken... for same cost/supply they kill all terran ground units... only banshee can kill immortals cost effectively... if terran didn't have such brute strength pre-AOE timing attacks, the differential would be massive in P favour. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: even immortals are completely broken... for same cost/supply they kill all terran ground units... only banshee can kill immortals cost effectively... You must be joking. | ||
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:25 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: even immortals are completely broken... for same cost/supply they kill all terran ground units... only banshee can kill immortals cost effectively... You must be joking. Sadly, I don't think he is. | ||
eighteen8
105 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:03 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 03:45 eighteen8 wrote: On March 03 2012 03:18 Plansix wrote: On March 03 2012 03:15 eighteen8 wrote: nice work. game now seems pretty balanced for the top 1% of players. fuck the 99%. wait...aren't we the..? shit Games are balanced or not balanced. There is no qualification like "for x players". If you are unable to win and the game is balanced, you need to practice more. If you don't want to do that, but still want to win, you need to play another game that allows you to win at your current skill level. at first i thought: it makes sense. but: with this statement you say as well that you can only achieve the shown winrates if you are at the skill level of the top players :O you already know that this is neither possible nor can this be intended through game design. I did not say that. You made the argument that the game is not balanced for you, at your skill level. This means that you somehow feel that the some of the players who beat you are somehow less skilled that you, but are abusing some imbalance to win games. People make this argument all the time, that less talented players beat them and it is the games fault for this. There are parts of the game where one race has an advantage, but it is your job as a player, to be aware of these. If you have a poor win rate against a specific race, that is a bad match up. Not imbalance because you are in a specific league. More importantly, if people with higher skill levels than you can have win rates at 50%, you should be asking "why is the game not balanced for me?" You should be asking, "what can I do, at my skill level, to be more like them?" convinced 0_0 | ||
Mowr
Sweden791 Posts
| ||
shiroiusagi
SoCal, USA3955 Posts
| ||
Megabuster123
Canada1837 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:00 MVTaylor wrote: No surprise at all in the PvT win rate favoring Protoss, I sincerely hope the recent trend in patches from Blizzard is reversed if they are ever able to realise that they've gone too far. Likewise I think the international ZvT win rates again make everyone question why snipe got changed. Blizzard had almost actually achieved a near perfect 50/50 match up in TvZ and then they make a change which I am 100% sure will show the different once TLPD March gets released. Just as a general point on TLPD Korea that I think people should consider. If you think about the number of top, top, top tier Terrans there are and the number of decent Zergs then that is why the match up looks so bad. If there were more good Zergs other than DRG, NesTea, Leenock and Curious then it wouldn't look so bad as for each of them I can name five Terrans of similar or better skill level. Given how small the sample size is I'd even just state that CoCa competing in no tournaments has been detrimental (1400 TvZ's in 12 months, ~100 TvZ's a month, no CoCa, around 15 less TvZ's given KSL/ESV/GSL) so, you have TLPD International rates, where there are loads of great players split about evenly between all races, or TLPD Korea where there are loads of amazing Terrans, then Protoss and then Zerg. Having said that I obviously can't explain why PvT is so favored in Korea as it shouldn't be given my reasoning, although Protoss did have a great month in GSL.... maybe I'll just refer back to the first point in my post. Coca's ZvT wasn't very good.... He was a vP and vZ guy I believe... | ||
Severedevil
United States4795 Posts
-Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... | ||
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:12 hasuterrans wrote: Funny, if you had listened to many protoss posters over the past month you may have gotten the mistaken idea that mutalisks had completely unbalanced PvZ. It was really only foreigner tosses who complained about it. I found it funny to when korean tosses already deal with mutalisks just fine as they adapted | ||
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. | ||
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. Oh, that just made my day. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
int'l seems to getting closer and closer to balance though. | ||
RaiD.RaynoR
United States294 Posts
| ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. | ||
KhAmun
United States1005 Posts
| ||
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
| ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. | ||
EmperorKira
United Kingdom107 Posts
| ||
Xacalite
Germany533 Posts
they are just so damn good | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. I completely agree. The only viable terran all-in is 1-1-1 period. There is nothing else that can actually kill a protoss player off 1 base unless he's terribad. PvT has been Protoss favored for a while and Blizzard continues to nerf Terran, but hey terrans aren't allowed to complain ever, even when a matchup is obviously broken. So, yeah the game is perfectly balanced, protoss players are just way better and have amazing micro (especially with zealots and archons). | ||
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Really? Make feedback deal 50% or even no damage to Mechanical Units, I don't know--- but having it make Ravens 100% useless, Thors vulnerable and pointless--- as you can't use strike cannons to attack archons/colossus/immortals and it takes a long time to reach a lot of energy on that unit, just seem downright absurd. Medivacs lose their main focus of healing, and damaging BCs/preventing yamato (though I suppose you rarely do see yamato in TvP). The struggle with TvP late game is Terran can't transition out of bio play. Why build Thors when your opponent will probably have chargelots/templars/robotech? Why mass BCs when they will have archons/stalkers/templars, and more than likely you will be extremely behind on upgrades? | ||
Iblis
904 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... | ||
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: They need to come up with a solution in regards to Feedback, whether a nerf or changing it all together. Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Really? Make feedback deal 50% or even no damage to Mechanical Units, I don't know--- but having it make Ravens 100% useless, Thors vulnerable and pointless--- as you can't use strike cannons to attack archons/colossus/immortals and it takes a long time to reach a lot of energy on that unit, just seem downright absurd. Medivacs lose their main focus of healing, and damaging BCs/preventing yamato (though I suppose you rarely do see yamato in TvP). The struggle with TvP late game is Terran can't transition out of bio play. Why build Thors when your opponent will probably have chargelots/templars/robotech? Why mass BCs when they will have archons/stalkers/templars, and more than likely you will be extremely behind on upgrades? I don't get this complaint. Thos have 400 HP and at most they can have 200 energy Bs have 550 HP. While it does a lot of damage if the Thors have full energy I don't see how Feedback makes Thors THAT vulnerable or pointless. Though I wouldn't mind a change back to Cooldown. But as far as Bcs and Thors I don't think Feedback is their biggest problem. As for the raven I think its relation with feedback is fine as its an anticaster unit. I do think that the Raven should be made more "movable" as its vulnerability IMO is more due to being relatively slow. | ||
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:29 Iblis wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... Well, to be fair Feedback can potentially kill an unit and remove it from the "board" all together. While EMP if you retreat is only temporary.Its dumb to compare abilities directly though.... | ||
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:29 Iblis wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... That's a stupid comparison. Both races have different units and the skills affect differently. The point being is EMP doesn't stop Protoss players from building Archons/Colossus/Motherships/sentries, now does it? How OFTEN do you see a Thor/Raven/or even a successful BC build in a late game TvP? | ||
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
Smackzilla
United States539 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:36 eYeball wrote: Blizzard should just wait now and see imo, I don't hope we see some sudden nerfs/buffs Definitely, and the charts support that. International looks pretty balanced and Korea looks really unstable. Either way I don't think they can be confident that there's imbalance or what it might be. That said, nerf protoss!@ | ||
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:29 Iblis wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... God this is among the dumbest and least productive lines of thought. Snixsnipe pointed out multiple reasons why feedback makes it virtually impossible to tech swap out of bio. EMP hardly does that to protoss. You can't just say they cancel each other out and it's balanced. | ||
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
Fealthas
607 Posts
| ||
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
"Waaa zerg korea rates" this month "Waaa terran International" the next month I feel like im in the WOW battle net forums with how much people want stuff patched... | ||
Severedevil
United States4795 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. If Toss is building statics (beyond the 1-2 of a PvZ forge expand) or leaving units home, he's not punishing you with a timing attack. If a Reaper and a Hellion can force the Protoss to leave a couple Stalkers home, and let you scout his base (and see a third) they've already done far more than pay for themselves. Terrans are often frustrated that Protoss's Stalkers can always escape early on if the Protoss is wary enough -- until Stimpacks and Concussive, nothing can really catch them, so they can poke around the map to the limits of the Protoss's ability to multitask. Well, Hellions and Reapers can do the same unless Protoss has Phoenixes or Blink... sure, they're pretty awkward to mass, but I don't think there's any need to mass 'em, and they both fall right along the normal Terran tech paths. A Banshee or two can also scout brilliantly and pin Protoss units at home + force observers with the threat of cloak, and they pull their weight in a straight-up fight if they don't die harassing, but that's a much larger investment. On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. My TvP experience says a two rax no-gas opening which pulls ~half its SCVs can trade favorably against any 13 gate --> core opening that doesn't go Zealot-before-Stalker, can hide its second rax so that it likes like a 1 rax FE, and still has the economy to pump SCVs and transition into Marauder or marine-tank-banshee play or bunker expand; that was my build when I got tired of PvP. That was months ago and in masters, but I'm sure pros could micro marine-scv much better than I. I don't think Terran has run out of scary timings. | ||
-TesteR-
Canada1165 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:34 SniXSniPe wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:29 Iblis wrote: On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... That's a stupid comparison. Both races have different units and the skills affect differently. The point being is EMP doesn't stop Protoss players from building Archons/Colossus/Motherships/sentries, now does it? How OFTEN do you see a Thor/Raven/or even a successful BC build in a late game TvP? About the same time I see it used at all, never. Never score if you don't shoot. | ||
magnaflow
Canada1521 Posts
IMO BLizzard should have just let the game play itself out long ago Take out the last two patches and think of where this game might be today. It really seems that whenever they come in to patch something that felt a little to strong people were just starting to figure out how to defend said strong strategy, then the patch comes in and basically takes out that strategy completely. Anyways, leave the game as it is till HotS from now on and make some changes during the beta for HotS if need be. | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:50 Severedevil wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. If Toss is building statics (beyond the 1-2 of a PvZ forge expand) or leaving units home, he's not punishing you with a timing attack. If a Reaper and a Hellion can force the Protoss to leave a couple Stalkers home, and let you scout his base (and see a third) they've already done far more than pay for themselves. Terrans are often frustrated that Protoss's Stalkers can always escape early on if the Protoss is wary enough -- until Stimpacks and Concussive, nothing can really catch them, so they can poke around the map to the limits of the Protoss's ability to multitask. Well, Hellions and Reapers can do the same unless Protoss has Phoenixes or Blink... sure, they're pretty awkward to mass, but I don't think there's any need to mass 'em, and they both fall right along the normal Terran tech paths. A Banshee or two can also scout brilliantly and pin Protoss units at home + force observers with the threat of cloak, and they pull their weight in a straight-up fight if they don't die harassing, but that's a much larger investment. Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. My TvP experience says a two rax no-gas opening which pulls ~half its SCVs can trade favorably against any 13 gate --> core opening that doesn't go Zealot-before-Stalker, can hide its second rax so that it likes like a 1 rax FE, and still has the economy to pump SCVs and transition into Marauder or marine-tank-banshee play or bunker expand; that was my build when I got tired of PvP. That was months ago and in masters, but I'm sure pros could micro marine-scv much better than I. I don't think Terran has run out of scary timings. There is so much wrong with this post, it's not even worth going into it. But whatever. First of all, Hellions and Reapers? Really? That literally dies to almost every single protoss all-in I could think of. You die to three gate voids, 4 gate, your expansion is extremely delayed because of early gas. "right along the normal terran tech paths", yes, but you usually expand and then tech, not the other way around, unless you want to be massively behind in economy. And 1 stalkers can take a reaper out without even losing shield. So the terran opens 1 rax tech lab into FE and then what? gets a reaper, protoss 4 gates leaves 1 stalker in his base and wins? Or 3 gate void ray, what's terran gonna do against that? This is all extremely risky nonsense and the only thing you get out of it is some map control, but even that is wrong because stalkers beat both reaper and hellions. So what exactly would be the point of that opening? auto-loss???? And banshees are cost effective in straight up fights? This is wrong too, I doubt you even play this game because banshees are everything but cost effective in a midgame fight. And anyway, let's just assume you open banshees, when are you going to expand, what is your other tech, do you go reactor marines? if not, you will once again die to 3 gate void ray/4 gate and all that other good stuff. "that doesn't go zealot before stalker"... really? I mean really? thats what protoss players mainly do.. and just to put this straight, you go semi-all in and THEN expo? That doesn't even make any sense, you either pull all scvs or none, you can't semi all-in with 50% of your scvs and then expo behind, that doesn't even make any sense at all. it may have worked months ago, like you said, but protoss players aren't stupid anymore, they know how to react to terran attacks, they have actually learned it. Terran has exactly 1 viable all-in and that's the 1-1-1, everything else only works against terrible, terrible protoss players. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. | ||
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:34 SniXSniPe wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:29 Iblis wrote: On March 03 2012 07:17 SniXSniPe wrote: Feedback affects: Medivacs Ghosts BCs Thors Ravens + PDD Emp affects: Every protoss units shield Sentries High templars phenixes Mothership It basically damage any unit it hits, prevents spellcasters to cast any spell and unlike feedback it's in a zone. I really don't think balance suggestions should be done in this post... That's a stupid comparison. Both races have different units and the skills affect differently. The point being is EMP doesn't stop Protoss players from building Archons/Colossus/Motherships/sentries, now does it? How OFTEN do you see a Thor/Raven/or even a successful BC build in a late game TvP? While I don't disagree with the premise that feedback counters too many higher tier units as a given, I do find two flaws in your argument. 1) EMP DOES largely counter sentries and is specifically a major contributing reason why sentry production is minimized in PvT lategame compositions. For the Archon, while EMP is not reason enough to never build them, they are not a highly desired unit in the first place and are often built as a way to utilize empty HTs or balance a gas-heacy economy. EMP being able to reduce them to 10 hp is plenty effective (and I've seen it end games). 2) Feedback countering Thors, BCs, and PDDs is more a problem with the fact that Terran units tend to get energy bars as bonuses, not with Feedback itself. While I don't think Ravens or BCs need any real change, the Thor and PDD having their energy bars removed (along with the thors cannon ability) would be a meaningful buff to late-game TvP compositions that I can't see any problems with. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. Edit: I forgot to mention all the beautifull all ins you face on ladder where they have a warp prism and warp sentry's in your main, block your ramp and kill all your shit. Another fun fact: It's actually impossible to FE on metalopolis on the KOR ladder. Edit2: Shit forgot the 1 base blink stalker all in. Haha. Protoss has so many I sometimes forget some of them! -Because of the all ins and because you need twice as good to be as a Protoss to win in lategame is why I quit playing this season. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. | ||
dainbramage
Australia1442 Posts
On March 02 2012 20:51 Elp wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 18:27 HavocGG wrote: The korean chart's never been very balanced mainly due to how low the amount of games played is compared to international, keep that in mind guys. Korean : 363 games International : 2208 games The korean statistics do mean something, you just have to take note of the standard deviation. The deviation is higher due to the smaller sample size, but if you compare the ZvP stats with the stats from last month you see a decent shift that goes beyond the margin of error. But as far as i know the error bars that are shown in the graphs should be accompanied by a confidence level, right? That seems to be missing. The error bars are one standard deviation, so about 68% confidence that the "real" winrate lies within them. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. I don't care about the top players, the game is just not fun for me at a high master/gm level. These all ins are very, very viable and potent, they just aren't used enough in the EU and NA scene, on the KOR ladder about half my games are all ins. Yes they aren't used much against the likes of MMA or MKP, agreed. Neither is a 1-1-1. Also when I watch Cloud's stream he is often bitching about how protoss all ins are too strong, so I am not the only one. Any DT opening fails so hard if prepared for, I treat it as an all in. It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold Because they are? You deal different with a cloak strategy then with a raven first. But it doesn't really matter, they both won't win you games anymore since patch. | ||
Shiori
3815 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. Edit: I forgot to mention all the beautifull all ins you face on ladder where they have a warp prism and warp sentry's in your main, block your ramp and kill all your shit. Another fun fact: It's actually impossible to FE on metalopolis on the KOR ladder. Edit2: Shit forgot the 1 base blink stalker all in. Haha. Protoss has so many I sometimes forget some of them! -Because of the all ins and because you need twice as good to be as a Protoss to win in lategame is why I quit playing this season. I went ahead and asked one of my GM Terran friends (SCSXenocider) what the best TvP opening is, and he said 1 rax FE. To quote, he said that "properly played, 1rax FE can hold every Protoss all-in, assuming you know how to react." Now onto the builds you listed: 4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. 5gate sentry- horrible. even more obvious. 3gate robo- good only if the robo is proxied 3gate stargate- good if stargate isn't scouted/terran walls off 3gate DT- good if terran has no game sense 1base colossus- absolutely terrible 6gate- good build 6gate robo- less good than 6gate but decent 8gate- basically a variant on 6gate 2base colossus all-in- good on shakuras and cloud kingdom and pretty much nowhere else warp prism 4gate (i assume that's what you mean)- scout. if Protoss is on 1base for this long and you don't notice, you're doing something wrong. 1base blink stalker all-in- unreliable as hell Honestly, any time a Protoss DOESN'T 1gate expand, you should be wary. There are essentially 2 or 3 builds, each with a few variations. You have Nexus first, 1gate Fe, and 2/3 gate expo builds. Everything else is a variation (e.g. 1gate Robo is just a delayed 1gate FE; it's a bad build though IMO.) If I'm sitting on 1 base with 2 gases, then I'm either 3gate expanding or going to all-in you. Prepare accordingly. I also pretty much guarantee that no Protoss all-in that isn't extremely new has the same sort of winrate that 1-1-1 had prepatch, and probably isn't even better than the winrate 1-1-1 has now (which you grossly underestimate; people 1-1-1 in tournaments constantly, and they win enough for it to be a justified build). | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:33 Shiori wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. Edit: I forgot to mention all the beautifull all ins you face on ladder where they have a warp prism and warp sentry's in your main, block your ramp and kill all your shit. Another fun fact: It's actually impossible to FE on metalopolis on the KOR ladder. Edit2: Shit forgot the 1 base blink stalker all in. Haha. Protoss has so many I sometimes forget some of them! -Because of the all ins and because you need twice as good to be as a Protoss to win in lategame is why I quit playing this season. I went ahead and asked one of my GM Terran friends (SCSXenocider) what the best TvP opening is, and he said 1 rax FE. To quote, he said that "properly played, 1rax FE can hold every Protoss all-in, assuming you know how to react." Now onto the builds you listed: 4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. 5gate sentry- horrible. even more obvious. 3gate robo- good only if the robo is proxied 3gate stargate- good if stargate isn't scouted/terran walls off 3gate DT- good if terran has no game sense 1base colossus- absolutely terrible 6gate- good build 6gate robo- less good than 6gate but decent 8gate- basically a variant on 6gate 2base colossus all-in- good on shakuras and cloud kingdom and pretty much nowhere else warp prism 4gate (i assume that's what you mean)- scout. if Protoss is on 1base for this long and you don't notice, you're doing something wrong. 1base blink stalker all-in- unreliable as hell Honestly, any time a Protoss DOESN'T 1gate expand, you should be wary. There are essentially 2 or 3 builds, each with a few variations. You have Nexus first, 1gate Fe, and 2/3 gate expo builds. Everything else is a variation (e.g. 1gate Robo is just a delayed 1gate FE; it's a bad build though IMO.) If I'm sitting on 1 base with 2 gases, then I'm either 3gate expanding or going to all-in you. Prepare accordingly. Generic nonsense. You make such ultimate statements, like 1 base collossus is bad, well it isn't. Most protoss all-ins are way harder for the terran to hold then for the protoss to execute, and I'm not even talking slightly harder, no.. way harder. 1 base collossus is extremely hard to hold and you have to be extremely lucky. you scout 2-3 gates and a robo, you assume it's 3 gate immortal all-in (or even warp prism all-in, you can't definitively rule anything out for sure), if you don't see the robo bay, you outright just die to this build. and if you follow it up with 1 rax into 5 rax barracks you die aswell, or its at least extremely unlikely you can survive that. thats just 1 base collossus, I wont talk about any of the other all-ins, I will just let some other terran player waste his time with this. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. It's actually still pretty good, especially because no protoss use it anymore. It hits so fast that it can completely catch you by suprise. Anyway, I got killed by it today. You also have the 1/2 gate proxy's, which I needed about 15 games of practice off to be able to hold efficiently without being behind. Generic nonsense. You make such ultimate statements, like 1 base collossus is bad, well it isn't. Most protoss all-ins are way harder for the terran to hold then for the protoss to execute, and I'm not even talking slightly harder, no.. way harder. 1 base collossus is extremely hard to hold and you have to be extremely lucky. you scout 2-3 gates and a robo, you assume it's 3 gate immortal all-in (or even warp prism all-in, you can't definitively rule anything out for sure), if you don't see the robo bay, you outright just die to this build. and if you follow it up with 1 rax into 5 rax barracks you die aswell, or its at least extremely unlikely you can survive that. Yeah, it's interesting how easy it is to misread some all ins of toss. I have had it happened to me aswell where I think it's a 3 gate immortal all in, make mass marines and then 2 collosus kill me. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:41 Recognizable wrote: The only build I ever use are 1 rax FE or 14 CC. Doesn't change the fact that protoss has absolutely zero to be weary off and therefore can be a bit more greedier. Whilst as terrans there is always this threat early and midgame. But really, lategame protoss is strong enough so most protoss EU/NA have forgotten the art of all ining. Show nested quote + 4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. It's actually still pretty good, especially because no protoss use it anymore. It hits so fast that it can completely catch you by suprise. Anyway, I got killed by it today. You also have the 1/2 gate proxy's, which I needed about 15 games of practice off to be able to hold efficiently without being behind. Show nested quote + Generic nonsense. You make such ultimate statements, like 1 base collossus is bad, well it isn't. Most protoss all-ins are way harder for the terran to hold then for the protoss to execute, and I'm not even talking slightly harder, no.. way harder. 1 base collossus is extremely hard to hold and you have to be extremely lucky. you scout 2-3 gates and a robo, you assume it's 3 gate immortal all-in (or even warp prism all-in, you can't definitively rule anything out for sure), if you don't see the robo bay, you outright just die to this build. and if you follow it up with 1 rax into 5 rax barracks you die aswell, or its at least extremely unlikely you can survive that. Yeah, it's interesting how easy it is to misread some all ins of toss. I have had it happened to me aswell where I think it's a 3 gate immortal all in, make mass marines and then 2 collosus kill me. The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. | ||
GodZo
Italy224 Posts
The maps influence a lot. | ||
ePLocust
United States587 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. Too bad there aren't enough Korean games to make a good judgement off of them. The sample size is too small it would be nice to see a large sample of korean games and how it balances out then. | ||
Kznn
Brazil9072 Posts
| ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
| ||
freetgy
1720 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. | ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. Hero has shown that Toss can have deadly all ins even if they nexus first. You scout nexus first. obvious response is to make a quick in base 3rd. oops, too bad toss 8 gated. if Terran cc's first toss player basically doesn't need to make units. so yea, toss has waaaaaay more viable all ins than terran in pvt. hell, how many times have you seen a toss win from just 3 gate pressure? Terran gets 1 shot to kill protoss. It's right after his first 2-4 medivacs are out. if the toss is stupid enough, yea he can drop the main and trash him, but if toss makes it past that point the game's basically over. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Would you care to list the many many Terran all-ins, and why you could confuse them with anything else? :p Aside, from any balance considerations, one must agree that Protoss has the widest and deadliest (in their confusing patterns) range of all-ins. Some are pretty damn random, like 6 gate, 8 gate or 3 gate Immortal (I saw a delayed version somewhere that hits at a very awkward timing). | ||
prOpVikingBB2
Sweden273 Posts
| ||
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:09 ePLocust wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. Too bad there aren't enough Korean games to make a good judgement off of them. The sample size is too small it would be nice to see a large sample of korean games and how it balances out then. To be honest a sample size of 1100 is large enough to make a lot of statistically valid conclusions, especially when the hypothesis is as extreme as an 8% variance in ZvP. Resorting to the "sample size of 1000 too small" argument is very weak at this point. Would a fair coin ever result in 8% deviance over 1000 flips? No. Of course a complex game like starcraft is completely different than the statistical flip of a coin, but saying a sample size of 1000 is too small is simply incorrect. I've heard of new drug trials conducted by the FDA on humans with a sample size of less than 200, which seems incredibly small considering how strict the regulations are on the production and sale of artificial drugs/supplements/medicines. I would be really interested to see more analysis with regards to maps, if that's at all possible. Note: I am not making any comments about units, races, or patches. I am saying that 8% over 1000 games is statistically significant this month, just as last month it was 6% the other way (zerg favored). I wonder if there's a new style/build that's becoming prevalent amongst Korean Protosses that's causing this 14% swing over one month. | ||
Shiori
3815 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:37 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:33 Shiori wrote: On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. Edit: I forgot to mention all the beautifull all ins you face on ladder where they have a warp prism and warp sentry's in your main, block your ramp and kill all your shit. Another fun fact: It's actually impossible to FE on metalopolis on the KOR ladder. Edit2: Shit forgot the 1 base blink stalker all in. Haha. Protoss has so many I sometimes forget some of them! -Because of the all ins and because you need twice as good to be as a Protoss to win in lategame is why I quit playing this season. I went ahead and asked one of my GM Terran friends (SCSXenocider) what the best TvP opening is, and he said 1 rax FE. To quote, he said that "properly played, 1rax FE can hold every Protoss all-in, assuming you know how to react." Now onto the builds you listed: 4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. 5gate sentry- horrible. even more obvious. 3gate robo- good only if the robo is proxied 3gate stargate- good if stargate isn't scouted/terran walls off 3gate DT- good if terran has no game sense 1base colossus- absolutely terrible 6gate- good build 6gate robo- less good than 6gate but decent 8gate- basically a variant on 6gate 2base colossus all-in- good on shakuras and cloud kingdom and pretty much nowhere else warp prism 4gate (i assume that's what you mean)- scout. if Protoss is on 1base for this long and you don't notice, you're doing something wrong. 1base blink stalker all-in- unreliable as hell Honestly, any time a Protoss DOESN'T 1gate expand, you should be wary. There are essentially 2 or 3 builds, each with a few variations. You have Nexus first, 1gate Fe, and 2/3 gate expo builds. Everything else is a variation (e.g. 1gate Robo is just a delayed 1gate FE; it's a bad build though IMO.) If I'm sitting on 1 base with 2 gases, then I'm either 3gate expanding or going to all-in you. Prepare accordingly. Generic nonsense. You make such ultimate statements, like 1 base collossus is bad, well it isn't. Most protoss all-ins are way harder for the terran to hold then for the protoss to execute, and I'm not even talking slightly harder, no.. way harder. 1 base collossus is extremely hard to hold and you have to be extremely lucky. you scout 2-3 gates and a robo, you assume it's 3 gate immortal all-in (or even warp prism all-in, you can't definitively rule anything out for sure), if you don't see the robo bay, you outright just die to this build. and if you follow it up with 1 rax into 5 rax barracks you die aswell, or its at least extremely unlikely you can survive that. thats just 1 base collossus, I wont talk about any of the other all-ins, I will just let some other terran player waste his time with this. You're unlucky in that QQ isn't very effective against me. If you're losing regularly to 1 base Colossus (2base I can understand) you are doing something wrong. | ||
Catatonic
United States699 Posts
On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Cause Terran winning almost everything last year shows balance. These patchs are extreamly needed hence the shift in power where at one time Terran always won an now they're down to where every one else is | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. This mysterious wide arsenal of all ins terran appearently has that are really easy to execute and have an extremely high win rate must be something only you know, because as a terran player I have no idea what you are talking about. Standard protoss argument: "terran has as many all ins as protoss" - "name them!"....... no response. And protoss can't hold all-ins if they know they are coming? What am I reading here? What all-ins can you not hold as protoss even if you know they are coming, I am really intrigued to hear about these mysterious terran all-ins that appearently only protoss players know. On March 03 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:37 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 08:33 Shiori wrote: On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. Edit: I forgot to mention all the beautifull all ins you face on ladder where they have a warp prism and warp sentry's in your main, block your ramp and kill all your shit. Another fun fact: It's actually impossible to FE on metalopolis on the KOR ladder. Edit2: Shit forgot the 1 base blink stalker all in. Haha. Protoss has so many I sometimes forget some of them! -Because of the all ins and because you need twice as good to be as a Protoss to win in lategame is why I quit playing this season. I went ahead and asked one of my GM Terran friends (SCSXenocider) what the best TvP opening is, and he said 1 rax FE. To quote, he said that "properly played, 1rax FE can hold every Protoss all-in, assuming you know how to react." Now onto the builds you listed: 4gate - bad. super obvious. it's not super potent. not even gonna entertain that stupidity. 5gate sentry- horrible. even more obvious. 3gate robo- good only if the robo is proxied 3gate stargate- good if stargate isn't scouted/terran walls off 3gate DT- good if terran has no game sense 1base colossus- absolutely terrible 6gate- good build 6gate robo- less good than 6gate but decent 8gate- basically a variant on 6gate 2base colossus all-in- good on shakuras and cloud kingdom and pretty much nowhere else warp prism 4gate (i assume that's what you mean)- scout. if Protoss is on 1base for this long and you don't notice, you're doing something wrong. 1base blink stalker all-in- unreliable as hell Honestly, any time a Protoss DOESN'T 1gate expand, you should be wary. There are essentially 2 or 3 builds, each with a few variations. You have Nexus first, 1gate Fe, and 2/3 gate expo builds. Everything else is a variation (e.g. 1gate Robo is just a delayed 1gate FE; it's a bad build though IMO.) If I'm sitting on 1 base with 2 gases, then I'm either 3gate expanding or going to all-in you. Prepare accordingly. Generic nonsense. You make such ultimate statements, like 1 base collossus is bad, well it isn't. Most protoss all-ins are way harder for the terran to hold then for the protoss to execute, and I'm not even talking slightly harder, no.. way harder. 1 base collossus is extremely hard to hold and you have to be extremely lucky. you scout 2-3 gates and a robo, you assume it's 3 gate immortal all-in (or even warp prism all-in, you can't definitively rule anything out for sure), if you don't see the robo bay, you outright just die to this build. and if you follow it up with 1 rax into 5 rax barracks you die aswell, or its at least extremely unlikely you can survive that. thats just 1 base collossus, I wont talk about any of the other all-ins, I will just let some other terran player waste his time with this. You're unlucky in that QQ isn't very effective against me. If you're losing regularly to 1 base Colossus (2base I can understand) you are doing something wrong. This isn't an argument. That's just your way of accepting that you lost the argument. "you lose to that so you newb" doesn't even make any sense. It's not even the all-in itself that you lose to, it's more so the fact that there are so many and all of them require a different reaction and there is no reliable way for terran to scout exactly what's coming, a scan is completely 100% random, you might see the protoss tech, but if he builds it somewhere else in his base and you happen to scan the wrong side then it's lights out. It's not as easy for terran as to simply hit F and spam click around. | ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:57 Catatonic wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Cause Terran winning almost everything last year shows balance. These patchs are extreamly needed hence the shift in power where at one time Terran always won an now they're down to where every one else is terran winning everything? Last time I checked a foreign Terran hasn't won a major live event in well over a year... | ||
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:25 SeaSwift wrote: Woah, in TvP Terran drops below 50% in Korea for the first time and remains on top everywhere else, and all the Terran whiners come crawling out of the woodwork. I don't know what you're looking at. International and Korean graphs both have at least 2 or more months where T has fallen below 50% in TvP. November, January, February for TvP have fallen below 50% for T to correct you (for the Korean graph). On March 03 2012 11:01 xrapture wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 10:57 Catatonic wrote: On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Cause Terran winning almost everything last year shows balance. These patchs are extreamly needed hence the shift in power where at one time Terran always won an now they're down to where every one else is terran winning everything? Last time I checked a foreign Terran hasn't won a major live event in well over a year... Have you ever heard of Polt? | ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:18 SniXSniPe wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:25 SeaSwift wrote: Woah, in TvP Terran drops below 50% in Korea for the first time and remains on top everywhere else, and all the Terran whiners come crawling out of the woodwork. I don't know what you're looking at. International and Korean graphs both have at least 2 or more months where T has fallen below 50% in TvP. November, January, February for TvP have fallen below 50% for T to correct you (for the Korean graph). Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 11:01 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 10:57 Catatonic wrote: On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Cause Terran winning almost everything last year shows balance. These patchs are extreamly needed hence the shift in power where at one time Terran always won an now they're down to where every one else is terran winning everything? Last time I checked a foreign Terran hasn't won a major live event in well over a year... Have you ever heard of Polt? have you ever heard of reading comprehension? | ||
bundo
Canada113 Posts
| ||
bundo
Canada113 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:18 SniXSniPe wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:25 SeaSwift wrote: Woah, in TvP Terran drops below 50% in Korea for the first time and remains on top everywhere else, and all the Terran whiners come crawling out of the woodwork. I don't know what you're looking at. International and Korean graphs both have at least 2 or more months where T has fallen below 50% in TvP. November, January, February for TvP have fallen below 50% for T to correct you (for the Korean graph). Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 11:01 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 10:57 Catatonic wrote: On March 02 2012 18:02 Molybdenum wrote: On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea And just the month before it was about 14% different in favor of zerg. The metagame is shifting like crazy, and yet Blizzard is putting out balance patches when things aren't clearly in favor of one race or another. Cause Terran winning almost everything last year shows balance. These patchs are extreamly needed hence the shift in power where at one time Terran always won an now they're down to where every one else is terran winning everything? Last time I checked a foreign Terran hasn't won a major live event in well over a year... Have you ever heard of Polt? Have you ever heard of Polt? He said foreign terran, and polt is korean..... | ||
dainbramage
Australia1442 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:30 HyperionDreamer wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:09 ePLocust wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. Too bad there aren't enough Korean games to make a good judgement off of them. The sample size is too small it would be nice to see a large sample of korean games and how it balances out then. To be honest a sample size of 1100 is large enough to make a lot of statistically valid conclusions, especially when the hypothesis is as extreme as an 8% variance in ZvP. Resorting to the "sample size of 1000 too small" argument is very weak at this point. Would a fair coin ever result in 8% deviance over 1000 flips? No. Of course a complex game like starcraft is completely different than the statistical flip of a coin, but saying a sample size of 1000 is too small is simply incorrect. I've heard of new drug trials conducted by the FDA on humans with a sample size of less than 200, which seems incredibly small considering how strict the regulations are on the production and sale of artificial drugs/supplements/medicines. I would be really interested to see more analysis with regards to maps, if that's at all possible. Note: I am not making any comments about units, races, or patches. I am saying that 8% over 1000 games is statistically significant this month, just as last month it was 6% the other way (zerg favored). I wonder if there's a new style/build that's becoming prevalent amongst Korean Protosses that's causing this 14% swing over one month. The sample size isn't 1100. There were 1115 PvZ in korea in the time period of march 2011 to feb 2012. Feb 2012 pvz has a sample size closer to a tenth of that. Which, really, is too small. | ||
kongoline
6318 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. the difference is marines actually require skill to use late game while zealots/bl/archones/colo are just a-move units | ||
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:37 dainbramage wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 03 2012 10:30 HyperionDreamer wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:09 ePLocust wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. Too bad there aren't enough Korean games to make a good judgement off of them. The sample size is too small it would be nice to see a large sample of korean games and how it balances out then. To be honest a sample size of 1100 is large enough to make a lot of statistically valid conclusions, especially when the hypothesis is as extreme as an 8% variance in ZvP. Resorting to the "sample size of 1000 too small" argument is very weak at this point. Would a fair coin ever result in 8% deviance over 1000 flips? No. Of course a complex game like starcraft is completely different than the statistical flip of a coin, but saying a sample size of 1000 is too small is simply incorrect. I've heard of new drug trials conducted by the FDA on humans with a sample size of less than 200, which seems incredibly small considering how strict the regulations are on the production and sale of artificial drugs/supplements/medicines. I would be really interested to see more analysis with regards to maps, if that's at all possible. Note: I am not making any comments about units, races, or patches. I am saying that 8% over 1000 games is statistically significant this month, just as last month it was 6% the other way (zerg favored). I wonder if there's a new style/build that's becoming prevalent amongst Korean Protosses that's causing this 14% swing over one month. The sample size isn't 1100. There were 1115 PvZ in korea in the time period of march 2011 to feb 2012. Feb 2012 pvz has a sample size closer to a tenth of that. Which, really, is too small. Are you sure that's not just Feb? (I'm not sure, the graph for ZvP doesn't specify whether the number at the top is the total or the newest month). Edit: The overall graph shows around 360 games for the month of Feb, so yeah, the sample size is about 130. However, you can still do some calculations using p = 0.05 reasonably well with 130 trials. For example, a perfectly balanced match up would be 50-50 for each race. If we want to consider the probability of seeing 8% deviance from the "fair 50/50" status, the math would be as follows: Note: this probably requires first-second year university statistics knowledge. 8% deviance from 50/50 is 70.2 games won (130/2 = 65*1.08 = 70.2), but let's say 70 games. The probability of seeing at LEAST (this is required for using p-value calculations) 70 games won and 60 games lost could be checked using a two-tailed binomial distribution test. (We use two-tailed since we could just as easily see Zerg winning 8% more of the games as Protoss, the null hypothesis being to check the statistical significance of 8% win distribution assuming a statistically fair matchup, p level = 0.05, sample size 130). We would "expect" (initially assuming null hypothesis is true) 65 games won for each race. However we see 8% in each direction, so a two-tailed 8% distribution would be a range from 60 to 70 games. Thus, we must use the binomial distribution to find the probabilities of finding the 8% result, or a more extreme result (this is required to use p-testing), and sum them up. So, we would be summing up all the probabilities from 0 games - 60 games, and 70 games to 130 games. This is represented by the following formula: In this expression, b(130;k;0.5) represents the binomial mass function with 130 trials, k successes (ranges from 0-60 and 70-130 as stated above) and a probability of 0.5, assuming the matchup is "fair". It represents the probability that in 130 games, there will be k wins by Protoss (or Zerg, it doesn't matter since the probability is 50%). Also, B(130;60,0.5) represents the cumulative distribution function, which represents the probability that in 130 games, there will be less than or equal to k wins by Protoss/Zerg. I use the 1-B(130;70,0.5) since I want the area above the 70-win line, and the cdf gives me the area below. Basic probability theory states that the total area under the binomial distribution is 1, so 1 - B(130;70,0.5) gives me what I want. Plugging this into MATLAB, I get P = 0.3824, which shows that you are correct in saying this data is NOT statistically significant using a 5% confidence threshold (this is a pretty standard number). I wanted to just delete this post, but using some words of wisdom from xkcd, you can't not print something just cause you don't want it to be true. Note: If you use the same method with 1100 games and 8% deviance (two tailed range of 506-594), then you get P = 0.0080, which would be HUGELY statistically significant, suggesting the original null hypothesis is incorrect. So it is correct to currently say that we do not have the data to suggest that the null hypothesis is false, and we can still consider it as a "statistically balanced" matchup. However, I might be able to do something with weighted averages of wins over the past 1 year, which would give me a sample size of 1100. I'd be able to weight the average based on how long ago the games occurred, so more recent games have more effect on what I'd call the time adjusted win total. After I finish studying for midterms, I might mess around with this. Hopefully this post was at least moderately understandable for anyone who has not take statistics. | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 13:59 HyperionDreamer wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 11:37 dainbramage wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 03 2012 10:30 HyperionDreamer wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:09 ePLocust wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. Too bad there aren't enough Korean games to make a good judgement off of them. The sample size is too small it would be nice to see a large sample of korean games and how it balances out then. To be honest a sample size of 1100 is large enough to make a lot of statistically valid conclusions, especially when the hypothesis is as extreme as an 8% variance in ZvP. Resorting to the "sample size of 1000 too small" argument is very weak at this point. Would a fair coin ever result in 8% deviance over 1000 flips? No. Of course a complex game like starcraft is completely different than the statistical flip of a coin, but saying a sample size of 1000 is too small is simply incorrect. I've heard of new drug trials conducted by the FDA on humans with a sample size of less than 200, which seems incredibly small considering how strict the regulations are on the production and sale of artificial drugs/supplements/medicines. I would be really interested to see more analysis with regards to maps, if that's at all possible. Note: I am not making any comments about units, races, or patches. I am saying that 8% over 1000 games is statistically significant this month, just as last month it was 6% the other way (zerg favored). I wonder if there's a new style/build that's becoming prevalent amongst Korean Protosses that's causing this 14% swing over one month. The sample size isn't 1100. There were 1115 PvZ in korea in the time period of march 2011 to feb 2012. Feb 2012 pvz has a sample size closer to a tenth of that. Which, really, is too small. Are you sure that's not just Feb? (I'm not sure, the graph for ZvP doesn't specify whether the number at the top is the total or the newest month). at the top it says 363 games overall in february (all 3 races, non mirror obv), so it can't be 1100 PvZ games. It's not rocket science. | ||
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 03 2012 14:07 ChaosTerran wrote: at the top it says 363 games overall in february (all 3 races, non mirror obv), so it can't be 1100 PvZ games. It's not rocket science. Edited the above to be much more comprehensive. No need to be condescending, I simply didn't see it the first time. | ||
Severedevil
United States4795 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. | ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 16:37 Severedevil wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. except force fields completely crush any early all in from terran. It's why 3 rax has been dead since a month after release. | ||
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
| ||
ulan-bat
China403 Posts
On March 03 2012 14:07 ChaosTerran wrote: at the top it says 363 games overall in february (all 3 races, non mirror obv), so it can't be 1100 PvZ games. It's not rocket science. 117 PvZ/ZvP, see my post earlier in this thread: On March 02 2012 23:44 ulan-bat wrote: Some stats about the match-up specific graphs for Korea: ZvT or TvZ 106 games 57 different players - Noblesse 8.5% (9 games) - Curious 8.5% (9 games) ZvP or PvZ 117 games 69 players - Extreme 9.4% (11 games) PvT or TvP 140 games 79 players - Tear 8.6% (12 games) | ||
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On March 03 2012 16:45 xrapture wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 16:37 Severedevil wrote: On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. except force fields completely crush any early all in from terran. It's why 3 rax has been dead since a month after release. I can tell you from personal experience that 3-rax (i'm talking about 2 tech 1 reactor) is definetly NOT dead. It pwns nexus first, 1 gate fe, and beats basically every all-in (except 1 base collosi and dt's). I use it as my standard build in high masters, and i have a pretty good winrate just using the 3-rax (2 tech 1 reactor variation) every game. | ||
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote: Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! Can you provide the datatables from which you are extracting these charts ? And do you keep track of the length of the games in them ? (thus making it easy to have a separate chart for short and late games). | ||
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote: On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. Early game TvP tends to favor Protoss as long as the Protoss in question is good with force fields. It's the midgame where Protoss is trying to transition into either robo or templar tech that Terran gains a momentary but heavy advantage. The problem stems from Terran's forced reliance on T1 units (and the relative quality of said units) thanks to the uselessness of mech against Protoss. There's no reason for Terran to tech up to anything expensive, and so mass production of marine/marauder continues unabated and creates a nice window where Terran can often do a ton of damage simply by having a bunch of units out while Protoss is trying to get to T3. And then of course after that Protoss gains the upper hand with the deathball that crushes my soul with how anti-StarCraft it is. The matchup is pretty much a mess on all levels, and most of it stems from Protoss being poorly designed. Warp gate necessitates stalker/zealot being bad against barracks units early otherwise 4gate would be unstoppable. This requires existence of a spell like force field to keep Protoss from dying if Terran decides to attack. The issue is compounded by the ludicrously overpowered colossus having to make up for the poor DPS of gateway units compared to MMM but unlike tanks and brood lords, it's pretty mobile and much less risky to field in addition to its superior firepower. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 03 2012 17:21 forsooth wrote: The matchup is pretty much a mess on all levels, and most of it stems from Protoss being poorly designed. Warp gate necessitates stalker/zealot being bad against barracks units early otherwise 4gate would be unstoppable. This requires existence of a spell like force field to keep Protoss from dying if Terran decides to attack. The issue is compounded by the ludicrously overpowered colossus having to make up for the poor DPS of gateway units compared to MMM but unlike tanks and brood lords, it's pretty mobile and much less risky to field in addition to its superior firepower. Pretty much summarized all the problems with Tvp... | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 03 2012 16:37 Severedevil wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. On maps with a ramp to the natural....Those 1 and or 2 base all ins don't work. You only need like 4 forcefields to stall enough to get more units, or you just cut the army in half. Whatever, it just doesn't work either way. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 03 2012 16:59 kofman wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 16:45 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 16:37 Severedevil wrote: On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. except force fields completely crush any early all in from terran. It's why 3 rax has been dead since a month after release. I can tell you from personal experience that 3-rax (i'm talking about 2 tech 1 reactor) is definetly NOT dead. It pwns nexus first, 1 gate fe, and beats basically every all-in (except 1 base collosi and dt's). I use it as my standard build in high masters, and i have a pretty good winrate just using the 3-rax (2 tech 1 reactor variation) every game. I demand replays! I seriously haven't seen any 3 Rax in ages. I did see a few win with 2 Rax Conc against 15 Nexus though. Even then, it would mean that Terran has two all-ins : 1-1-1 and 3Rax stim. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
| ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. i don't want a protoss nerf, but sadly that seems to be blizzard's preferred way to deal with balance is to continually nerf stuff. the terran units are badly designed, therefore protoss feels imba compared to terran, therefore blizzard deny any responsibility for dumb terran units and nerf protoss instead. i'd like them to preferably give terran some kind of semi-viable build besides blind marine marauder medivac... TvP is mind numbingly boring and every single game that goes past 15 minutes is like carbon copy of the last - because there's simply no other viable way to play it out :/ | ||
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On March 03 2012 19:12 shizna wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. i don't want a protoss nerf, but sadly that seems to be blizzard's preferred way to deal with balance is to continually nerf stuff. the terran units are badly designed, therefore protoss feels imba compared to terran, therefore blizzard deny any responsibility for dumb terran units and nerf protoss instead. i'd like them to preferably give terran some kind of semi-viable build besides blind marine marauder medivac... TvP is mind numbingly boring and every single game that goes past 15 minutes is like carbon copy of the last - because there's simply no other viable way to play it out :/ there's a lot of cute 2 base all ins from terran, like banshee thor, marine tank medivac/banshee that are pretty strong. But yea, for a skilled macro game Terran only has one option-- blind mmm medivac ghost viking, attack with your first 2 medivacs pray you do damage or you lose. now that i think about it, any toss matchup is bland. pvz simply revolves around what 2 base all in the toss chooses, and huk said himself pvp is still the worst matchup in the game. then you look at TvT-- the best matchup in the game, and TvZ a very versatile and fun matchup. i guess toss is just poorly designed | ||
Severedevil
United States4795 Posts
On March 03 2012 18:47 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 16:37 Severedevil wrote: On March 03 2012 11:01 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 03 2012 09:25 freetgy wrote: On March 03 2012 09:00 ChaosTerran wrote: The thing is that it's entirely luck based. You see 2-3 gates and a robo and no robo bay (maybe proxied or maybe just at the other side of the protoss base) so what you expect is either a warp prism all in or immortal all-in and in both cases the correct response is => make more marines. But then he comes with 2 collossi and the only reason you lost is because he proxied a building and was hiding his collossi. It's extremely annoying and can make terrans look like complete noobs simply because they reacted to the wrong build. But it's not even a mistake, you scan and see the buildings and you have to assume the all-in is coming according to the tech you scout, missing 1 building is actually deadly in this case. Protoss always acts like it's so easy to read their all-ins. I'll tell you what, I've had protoss players fake a blink stalker all-in and then died to DTs (yeah that's kind of dumb, but you scan his base see some stalkers and a chronoboost on the twilight -> what are you going to assume?). The thing that annoys me about tvp early game is that you have to prepare for absolutely everything as terran, you can scout something and it can be something completely different in the end, if you don't get an engineering bay and a turret you die to dts, but if hes not going dts and actually does what you scouted (blink stalkers) you are short 250 mins almost for absolutely nothing. I seriously think that the game is broken in that regard and protoss should be abusing this alot more, it just keeps the terran guessing, spending money that he really doesn't want to spend and then lategame is a walk in the park for toss anyway. yeah and you can say 100% the same for if you switch that protoss with terran. and terran has allins are even easier to execute and with better winrates and alot wider arsenal of allins At least terran can hold an all-in easily knowing it is coming, it not like that the other way around. Also terran has way better scouting options earlygame. Oh really. Name the all-ins terran has, 1-1-1 and............. big void. there is nothing else. nothing viable that can potentially kill a protoss player, terran either has to play completely standard or do some 1-1-1 all-in and they always hit at around 10 mins, by then a protoss players has already scouted your base for minutes. The closest analogue I see to a 1-or-2 base warpgate all-in is a 1-or-2 base Stimpack all-in. Both have similar tech costs and timings, and both are quite deadly on 1-2 bases if the defending player is teching significantly without cutting econ, and can be performed with varied timings. (Immortal + Warpgate all-ins involve more tech. A ghost academy with Concussive Shells, or an Engineering Bay with +1 Infantry Weapons, would cost you a very similar infrastructure investment.) Terran also has the option of a no-gas mass marine all-in off 1-2 bases, which can be quite difficult to tell apart from a one-rax expand. A basic all-in follows a normal opening until it suddenly stops spending on economy and tech, masses only units + unit-producing structures + supply for 2-3 minutes, and then attacks and streams reinforcements until someone is dead. When the opponent has pumped workers continuously and teched significantly while you built only units, your all-in will generally succeed. Recently, Terran players have been punished by bunker breaks after they spent a lot of resources to get a flourishing two-base economy with upgraded infantry and medivacs -- possibly with double engineering bays and/or a third in-base orbital -- but before their tech and economy can properly kick in, by two-base Protoss players who sat low on the tech tree and cut econ for a massive army at a particular attack timing between 8:00 and 10:00. I'm fairly confident that a Protoss who makes similar deep investments into the future at the cost of the present (say, two-base +1/+1 with Charge and Obs before 10:00) will be similarly vulnerable to a two-base worker-cutting Terran all-in before the Protoss's tech completes. On maps with a ramp to the natural....Those 1 and or 2 base all ins don't work. You only need like 4 forcefields to stall enough to get more units, or you just cut the army in half. Whatever, it just doesn't work either way. Aye, but won't a chokepoint + ramp will help Terran defend against Protoss low-tech aggression as well? | ||
j1nzo
Germany367 Posts
international toss are just bad (which is as good as it gets) but korean toss are just getting slaughtered! mark my words: from the depths of the universe a golden warrior will arise. slayin not only the xel'naga themselves, but bringing dominance upon the other races as well! he will fill the void and bring balance back! (single handedly) | ||
Vond
Sweden145 Posts
On March 03 2012 19:46 j1nzo wrote: wow i didn't know that the sit. was looking sooo bad for protoss... international toss are just bad (which is as good as it gets) but korean toss are just getting slaughtered! mark my words: from the depths of the universe a golden warrior will arise. slayin not only the xel'naga themselves, but bringing dominance upon the other races as well! he will fill the void and bring balance back! (single handedly) Did you misread the charts or something? Protoss were winning the most, not the other way around | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 03 2012 19:16 xrapture wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 19:12 shizna wrote: On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. i don't want a protoss nerf, but sadly that seems to be blizzard's preferred way to deal with balance is to continually nerf stuff. the terran units are badly designed, therefore protoss feels imba compared to terran, therefore blizzard deny any responsibility for dumb terran units and nerf protoss instead. i'd like them to preferably give terran some kind of semi-viable build besides blind marine marauder medivac... TvP is mind numbingly boring and every single game that goes past 15 minutes is like carbon copy of the last - because there's simply no other viable way to play it out :/ there's a lot of cute 2 base all ins from terran, like banshee thor, marine tank medivac/banshee that are pretty strong. But yea, for a skilled macro game Terran only has one option-- blind mmm medivac ghost viking, attack with your first 2 medivacs pray you do damage or you lose. now that i think about it, any toss matchup is bland. pvz simply revolves around what 2 base all in the toss chooses, and huk said himself pvp is still the worst matchup in the game. then you look at TvT-- the best matchup in the game, and TvZ a very versatile and fun matchup. i guess toss is just poorly designed I think that TvZ is far better than TvT (unless it is Mech vs bio, then it's pretty much same level; tank/marine and mech battles are both somewhat boring imo), but I get what you are saying. And TvZ only lives from baneling vs marine. The moment Terran is not relying on marines, it becomes somewhat bad again, because it becomes the same numbers battle that all the other MUs rely upon. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 03 2012 20:42 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 19:16 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 19:12 shizna wrote: On March 03 2012 06:10 ACrow wrote: On March 03 2012 04:21 shizna wrote: ... imo zealots, HT, colossus and archon are far too versatile compared to terran units. ... Absolutely. Marines totally need to be more versatile. i don't want a protoss nerf, but sadly that seems to be blizzard's preferred way to deal with balance is to continually nerf stuff. the terran units are badly designed, therefore protoss feels imba compared to terran, therefore blizzard deny any responsibility for dumb terran units and nerf protoss instead. i'd like them to preferably give terran some kind of semi-viable build besides blind marine marauder medivac... TvP is mind numbingly boring and every single game that goes past 15 minutes is like carbon copy of the last - because there's simply no other viable way to play it out :/ there's a lot of cute 2 base all ins from terran, like banshee thor, marine tank medivac/banshee that are pretty strong. But yea, for a skilled macro game Terran only has one option-- blind mmm medivac ghost viking, attack with your first 2 medivacs pray you do damage or you lose. now that i think about it, any toss matchup is bland. pvz simply revolves around what 2 base all in the toss chooses, and huk said himself pvp is still the worst matchup in the game. then you look at TvT-- the best matchup in the game, and TvZ a very versatile and fun matchup. i guess toss is just poorly designed I think that TvZ is far better than TvT (unless it is Mech vs bio, then it's pretty much same level; tank/marine and mech battles are both somewhat boring imo), but I get what you are saying. And TvZ only lives from baneling vs marine. The moment Terran is not relying on marines, it becomes somewhat bad again, because it becomes the same numbers battle that all the other MUs rely upon. Yeah, more units should interact with eachother like banelings vs marines. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:29 xrapture wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. Hero has shown that Toss can have deadly all ins even if they nexus first. You scout nexus first. obvious response is to make a quick in base 3rd. oops, too bad toss 8 gated. if Terran cc's first toss player basically doesn't need to make units. so yea, toss has waaaaaay more viable all ins than terran in pvt. hell, how many times have you seen a toss win from just 3 gate pressure? Terran gets 1 shot to kill protoss. It's right after his first 2-4 medivacs are out. if the toss is stupid enough, yea he can drop the main and trash him, but if toss makes it past that point the game's basically over. It sounds quite obvious to me that 2 base all ins will be stronger the faster you get your second base up, common sense. Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 03 2012 21:24 Hakanfrog wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 09:29 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. Hero has shown that Toss can have deadly all ins even if they nexus first. You scout nexus first. obvious response is to make a quick in base 3rd. oops, too bad toss 8 gated. if Terran cc's first toss player basically doesn't need to make units. so yea, toss has waaaaaay more viable all ins than terran in pvt. hell, how many times have you seen a toss win from just 3 gate pressure? Terran gets 1 shot to kill protoss. It's right after his first 2-4 medivacs are out. if the toss is stupid enough, yea he can drop the main and trash him, but if toss makes it past that point the game's basically over. It sounds quite obvious to me that 2 base all ins will be stronger the faster you get your second base up, common sense. Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. Terran has a big advantage in the midgame and the 1-1-1 has 65+% win rates. Those things even it out to a "balanced" game. Protoss is a lot stronger in the early game when it comes to all sorts of busts, and you're only really safe until you have a good bio count with stim+combat shield, and even then immortal busts on 2 base can wreck you as far as all ins go, and lets not even mention the lategame. Terrans are being carried by one all-in and a good midgame right now in the matchup. The difficulty of the protoss all-ins are that there are so many variations of them, they all require different answers and they open from similar builds, which makes it hard to scout. I spent like two weeks only spamming out TvPs so I could learn all the different all-ins that could hit, and there were tons of variations. Everything from DTs, Void rays, immortal busts on one or two base, warp prism drops and pure warp gate pressure off 1 or 2 base. The strongest of them all would be the immortal busts off 2 base imho. Never found a good way to deal with that one. | ||
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
I only agree on that the game is becoming very very predictable. Especially compared to BW, there seems to be no diversity at all in PvT right now. If nobody does an all in, every PvT more or less looks the same. Which is the real problem. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 03 2012 21:24 Hakanfrog wrote: Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. Once again, name them. We have 1-1-1, one base 3Rax stim against 2 bases. Thorshee isn't an all-in, I used to go for it all the time and you can easily transition to Sky Terran from it. So I ask you, where is the plentiful of all-ins we have? Edit : not whining by the way, 1-1-1 is very effective, but I'm just wondering why Protoss believes that we have that huge range of all-ins when every game is pretty much MMMGV. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 21:40 Kukaracha wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 21:24 Hakanfrog wrote: Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. Once again, name them. We have 1-1-1, one base 3Rax stim against 2 bases. Thorshee isn't an all-in, I used to go for it all the time and you can easily transition to Sky Terran from it. So I ask you, where is the plentiful of all-ins we have? Maybe on ladder it's not, but for the pros (where balance actually matters) it is. ____ As an aside, people are so used to seeing TvZ as an exciting/fun matchup that they miss how horrendously lopsided it has been for literally the whole game in Korea. Zerg needs a buff for ZvT, and possibly a buff for ZvP, and not one that affects the lategame. It isn't the lategame where Zerg struggles, it's early on. Buff either lings or banelings. Not by a lot, but by enough to make them cost-efficient in more circumstances. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
IMO, the problem comes from the design of matchups. Games should be a constant struggle, there shouldn't be any advantages coming from the stage of the game. Even if TvZ looks balanced, if look deeper into it it's 60% in favor of Terran early-game, and 60% in favor of Zerg late-game. No race should have to "survive" any stage of the game to win. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 03 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 21:40 Kukaracha wrote: On March 03 2012 21:24 Hakanfrog wrote: Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. Once again, name them. We have 1-1-1, one base 3Rax stim against 2 bases. Thorshee isn't an all-in, I used to go for it all the time and you can easily transition to Sky Terran from it. So I ask you, where is the plentiful of all-ins we have? Maybe on ladder it's not, but for the pros (where balance actually matters) it is. ____ As an aside, people are so used to seeing TvZ as an exciting/fun matchup that they miss how horrendously lopsided it has been for literally the whole game in Korea. Zerg needs a buff for ZvT, and possibly a buff for ZvP, and not one that affects the lategame. It isn't the lategame where Zerg struggles, it's early on. Buff either lings or banelings. Not by a lot, but by enough to make them cost-efficient in more circumstances. I kind of disagree that Zerg needs a straight up buff, but I think more variations wouldn't hurt. As it stands, the whole zerg balancing relies way too much on outproducing an opponent and too little on building up some powerful units early (banelings being somewhat the exception when you play against Terran). Every kind of "creative play" usually just turns into an all-in or semi all-in, or it simply hits too late to be possible. In my opinion, the hatchery tech is not versatile enough to allow for anything but macro or allin. There is never something you can fall back upon when aggression does not do a ton of damage. | ||
ChriseC
Germany440 Posts
but zerg seems to struggle in korea especially in zvt even thou they got the ghost nerf .... also so much difference from January, im happy to see terrans not having the lead again | ||
kubiks
France1328 Posts
On March 03 2012 21:40 Kukaracha wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 21:24 Hakanfrog wrote: Doesn´t make any sense though that toss has better all-ins, is stronger in every part of the game like you say and only has a 53-54% win rate. Terran has plenty of all-ins. Once again, name them. We have 1-1-1, one base 3Rax stim against 2 bases. Thorshee isn't an all-in, I used to go for it all the time and you can easily transition to Sky Terran from it. So I ask you, where is the plentiful of all-ins we have? Edit : not whining by the way, 1-1-1 is very effective, but I'm just wondering why Protoss believes that we have that huge range of all-ins when every game is pretty much MMMGV. Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ? You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build. I think the current balance is : -TvP the terran pretty much have to all-in or be much more greedy than the protoss, normal safe play don't cut it anymore -TvZ is pretty balanced, but terran have much many more free win than zerg (hi bunker rush ), and korean zerg tends to do many odd decision (let's make 40 banelings and waste them all, let's stay on lair tech forever,...), otherwise it's pretty balanced -ZvP it's hard to know, protoss seems to be easier because 2-bases all-in got a better win ratio than zerg all-ins, and protoss is not deseperate in late game (and can hit agood pre-bls timing). But then you see stephano and you want to nerf zerg :D | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:17 kubiks wrote: Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ? You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build. Fair enough, then Protoss has sentry-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, stalker-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, 3Rax Void, 3Rax proxy Void, 3Rax DT, 3Rax proxy DT, 2 Immortals bust, 3 Immortals bust, 4 Immortals bust, etc, etc. | ||
Crashburn
United States476 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 22:17 kubiks wrote: Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ? You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build. Fair enough, then Protoss has sentry-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, stalker-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, 3Rax Void, 3Rax proxy Void, 3Rax DT, 3Rax proxy DT, 2 Immortals bust, 3 Immortals bust, 4 Immortals bust, etc, etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but I just think it's hilarious how you're double- and triple-counting strategies to make it seem like there's more variety. Why even bother arguing if you're not willing to change your mind and if you're going to make intellectually dishonest arguments? Jesus christ. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:30 Crashburn wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote: On March 03 2012 22:17 kubiks wrote: Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ? You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build. Fair enough, then Protoss has sentry-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, stalker-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, 3Rax Void, 3Rax proxy Void, 3Rax DT, 3Rax proxy DT, 2 Immortals bust, 3 Immortals bust, 4 Immortals bust, etc, etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but I just think it's hilarious how you're double- and triple-counting strategies to make it seem like there's more variety. Why even bother arguing if you're not willing to change your mind and if you're going to make intellectually dishonest arguments? Jesus christ. Fight fire with fire. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. | ||
weiliem
2049 Posts
| ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:30 Crashburn wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote: On March 03 2012 22:17 kubiks wrote: Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ? You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build. Fair enough, then Protoss has sentry-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, stalker-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, 3Rax Void, 3Rax proxy Void, 3Rax DT, 3Rax proxy DT, 2 Immortals bust, 3 Immortals bust, 4 Immortals bust, etc, etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but I just think it's hilarious how you're double- and triple-counting strategies to make it seem like there's more variety. Why even bother arguing if you're not willing to change your mind and if you're going to make intellectually dishonest arguments? Jesus christ. Hey, I'm just reacting to someone saying that 1-1-1 is "a lot of "all-ins. It's a build. Wether you get 1 more Banshee or not doesn't make it that different. If you count 1-1-1 as multiple all-ins, then there are 1 Immortal, 2 Immortals, 3 Immortals and 4 Immortal all-ins. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. | ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below high masters/GM. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. | ||
Biggun69
187 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. What do you mean? People can still have an enjoyable playing experience at their level. It's just that some people think that they can't because they think they lose to some form of imbalance. There is no imbalance at lower levels. There is however, builds that are easier to execute than others but thats just part of the game. If people work on macro and learn how to execute simple build orders than they can easily improve and win against anything, regardless of "imbalance". | ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups. | ||
Enzymatic
Canada1301 Posts
Some of you really need to take some statistics courses. | ||
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
On March 02 2012 19:15 Tsubbi wrote: despite all terran nerfs and map adjustments, tvz has been heavily t favored from release to now, maybe a more severe change to the core units of the matchup is needed they already did that (ghost nerf???) it just doesn't reflect in this month tlpd. it will surely in the next month. | ||
Enzymatic
Canada1301 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote: The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted. The maps influence a lot. There's something at least slightly ironic about this statement with it coming a few hours after a Zerg player wins the most prestigious SC2 tournament in Korea. | ||
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below high masters/GM. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. so assuming we would give for example marines 10 damage/shot, you are saying that it would not affect the ladder at all? or any patch until now had no affect at all at the ladder? that would be an incredibly stupid opinion. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:32 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups. This is what David Kim said about some protoss changes in patch 1.1: We have two key changes in mind for the zealot: the build time is being increased from 33 to 38 seconds, and the warpgate cooldown is being increased from 23 to 28 seconds. Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. This is what he said about the reaper change in patch 1.1.2: We take teamplay seriously as well as 1v1. Recent 1.1.2 patch changed reapers. While reapers had no problem in 1:1, if you look at the top of the 2:2 team ranks, almost half of them are Terran+Zerg, and they all use reaper-ling. This problem is same in NA as well as in Korea. This means that you can't succeed all that well in teamplay unless you play a Terran+Zerg combination, so we try to fix it if the problem is as big as that. If not, then we try to balance around 1:1. Also, the t > z > .... was just an arbitrary example, I didn't mean to imply anything with it. Just that if it occurred it would be really bad for low level play. You also have the impression I'm currently unsatisfied with low level play, when I'm mostly content with the current balance - my gripe is with people that dismiss the need for lower level balance at all. Note that saying: "it's not imbalanced, it's just easier to execute" seems silly, since the latter has to be part of whatever definition of balance you use for it to have any meaning in a game like SC2. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
| ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:32 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups. Wow what a bunch of bullshit. Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? If balance does not affect lower levels then Blizzard are either handing out wrong information (for whatever reason) or terran players are simply worse than their Zerg and protoss counter parts. And really, is that what we are arguing here? Think again. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? Link? | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:31 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? Link? http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3599263/Questions_from_the_Community_-25_01_2012#blog We don’t think this is an accurate assessment of the matchup because win/loss ratios are swinging both ways. This is especially true at league levels below Masters. That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. -David Kim, Sc2 Balance Designer. Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. | ||
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:53 lichter wrote: Someone needs to do an analysis as to why Korean and International winrates are so different Obviously it's because of a larger number of games, and Korea being based off very few tournaments, so if a player or two of a race make a deep run in the GSL it really off sets the score to one side | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: Show nested quote + That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. In the link david kim even said that "the complexity of the terran race makes it harder to learn" or something along those lines. Not all races are equally hard to play, not all races are equally strong at all levels of play, terran benefits the most from micro, if your micro is bad you won't be able to beat equally skilled protoss or zerg players. That's not to say that the game is imbalanced at pro level too, it is very balanced, but at lower levels terran is clearly the hardest race and I'd even go as far as to say that terran is the hardest race for everyone who is not a pro player, which of course is just my own opinion and not backed up by what david kim said. but terran being the weakest race and hardest race to learn for low level players is a fact. It's in the link, so please stop arguing about this, it's been official for more than a month now. | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
| ||
raf3776
United States1904 Posts
| ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:32 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups. Wow what a bunch of bullshit. Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? If balance does not affect lower levels then Blizzard are either handing out wrong information (for whatever reason) or terran players are simply worse than their Zerg and protoss counter parts. And really, is that what we are arguing here? Think again. I know what you mean, but isn´t that the exact opposite thing protosses heard time and time again that the best players are playing terran in korea(meaning for the most part that they are unlocking the full potential of the race) and we(protoss) should NOT whine that terran is soooo dominant in korea and we should simply get better(even including the best protosses btw.)? Now that does not apply? Even though there is definitely a LOT of improvement in lower leagues? Don´t follow that logic - but that´s probably me. | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. I can tell you pro from each races that will tell you the same shit about the other races And maybe if foreigners simply started winning major tournaments and stopped getting rolled by Koreans, there would be | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. They are pros. If there is a balance issue there, it certainly is relevant. For the record, I believe that TvP for pros is fundamentally broken at the moment, especially after seeing the winrate over time graphs. Terran is too strong midgame, when microed, stimmed MMM is at its peak efficiency, and Protoss too strong lategame, when mass splash kicks in. What is less clear or relevant is whether that trend continues down the ladder, to the point where players don't even know when to get the splash or stim that makes their race so powerful at each point, and whether any imbalances are significant enough to ruin the game for people. | ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:08 pPingu wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. I can tell you pro from each races that will tell you the same shit about the other races And maybe if foreigners simply started winning major tournaments and stopped getting rolled by Koreans, there would be Good point. I might split hairs here, but how many foreigner terrans are as of today effectively training in korea, and then come back to own some NA/EU tournaments? Jinro comes to mind first, and he is definitely a good player, but his results are quite lacking. Thorzain was there, he improved quite a bit but said KR is not his way to get better. I am still waiting for Kas or Beasty or Cloud to learn from the best, since they are obviously at a loss for ideas, especially vs Protoss. Many foreigners from the other races have been there, and their results showed(HuK,Nani,Grubby,IdrA,SaSe,ToD...etc I just know most Tosses because I am more familiar with them obviously). | ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:18 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. Right.... terrans are just worse. Excellent argument. I'm done here, you are basically insulting every terran player in this post. This is ridiculous. | ||
DrTZ
Switzerland49 Posts
| ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:20 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:18 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. Right.... terrans are just worse. Excellent argument. I'm done here, you are basically insulting every terran player in this post. This is ridiculous. Dude, are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying that you making the assumption that because Terrans in general are under performing at lower leagues means the race must be harder to play is just as bad as me making the assumption that Terrans in general are just worse than Protoss and Zergs. Both of which are untrue. You cannot, cannot, cannot ever try to balance around lower leagues. It does not work, and it has been proven time and time again through replay analysis of anyone mid masters and below that the reason they lose in games they have no idea why they lose has nothing to do with balance issues. I find it incredible that Terran has never had a win rate below 50% in any match up and people are still trying to throw out the harder to play card. Does it require more multi tasking at lower levels? Yes. But it also rewards that multi tasking equally, and the other races require just as much multi tasking at the pro level. And lastly, multi tasking is not the only indicative factor of skill in Starcraft. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:33 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:20 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 01:18 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. Right.... terrans are just worse. Excellent argument. I'm done here, you are basically insulting every terran player in this post. This is ridiculous. Dude, are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying that you making the assumption that because Terrans in general are under performing at lower leagues means the race must be harder to play is just as bad as me making the assumption that Terrans in general are just worse than Protoss and Zergs. Both of which are untrue. You cannot, cannot, cannot ever try to balance around lower leagues. It does not work, and it has been proven time and time again through replay analysis of anyone mid masters and below that the reason they lose in games they have no idea why they lose has nothing to do with balance issues. I find it incredible that Terran has never had a win rate below 50% in any match up and people are still trying to throw out the harder to play card. Does it require more multi tasking at lower levels? Yes. But it also rewards that multi tasking equally, and the other races require just as much multi tasking at the pro level. And lastly, multi tasking is not the only indicative factor of skill in Starcraft. Blizzard does balance around lower leagues. They prioritize high level play, but they do try to maintain an okay lower level balance. (which is all that's necessary, I think) A bunch of people here, including you, seem to act like trying to take lower leagues into account is the most awful thing you could do when it already happens. It's a silly and absolutist way of thinking that you can only afford because Blizzard took care to actually not let it get to the point where lower leagues are completely broken. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. | ||
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
| ||
Orracle
United States314 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:33 Flonomenalz wrote: Dude, are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying that you making the assumption that because Terrans in general are under performing at lower leagues means the race must be harder to play is just as bad as me making the assumption that Terrans in general are just worse than Protoss and Zergs. Both of which are untrue. You cannot, cannot, cannot ever try to balance around lower leagues. It does not work, and it has been proven time and time again through replay analysis of anyone mid masters and below that the reason they lose in games they have no idea why they lose has nothing to do with balance issues. I find it incredible that Terran has never had a win rate below 50% in any match up and people are still trying to throw out the harder to play card. Does it require more multi tasking at lower levels? Yes. But it also rewards that multi tasking equally, and the other races require just as much multi tasking at the pro level. And lastly, multi tasking is not the only indicative factor of skill in Starcraft. David Kim even stated Terran is failing at lower levels because it's a harder race to play. Why you want to neglect those quotes people are posting is beyond me. I do agree with you, this game should be balanced around the best players in the world(even if that does mean there will likely be no results from foreign Terrans). Have you bothered to look at the graphs? The past 3/4 months, Terran has had a sub 50% WLR in TvP. | ||
MVTaylor
United Kingdom2893 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:33 Flonomenalz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:20 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 01:18 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. Right.... terrans are just worse. Excellent argument. I'm done here, you are basically insulting every terran player in this post. This is ridiculous. Dude, are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying that you making the assumption that because Terrans in general are under performing at lower leagues means the race must be harder to play is just as bad as me making the assumption that Terrans in general are just worse than Protoss and Zergs. Both of which are untrue. You cannot, cannot, cannot ever try to balance around lower leagues. It does not work, and it has been proven time and time again through replay analysis of anyone mid masters and below that the reason they lose in games they have no idea why they lose has nothing to do with balance issues. I find it incredible that Terran has never had a win rate below 50% in any match up and people are still trying to throw out the harder to play card. Does it require more multi tasking at lower levels? Yes. But it also rewards that multi tasking equally, and the other races require just as much multi tasking at the pro level. And lastly, multi tasking is not the only indicative factor of skill in Starcraft. 1) Wrong 2) Yeah, I loved watching the ZvP finals today where DRG and Genius were microing multiple drops and a main engagement, | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:56 NotSorry wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:53 lichter wrote: Someone needs to do an analysis as to why Korean and International winrates are so different Obviously it's because of a larger number of games, and Korea being based off very few tournaments, so if a player or two of a race make a deep run in the GSL it really off sets the score to one side I think that's only a minor factor. I think the way bigger factor is that due to the few tournaments in Korea it's nearly always "Pro vs Pro"-games, while in foreign tournaments we see a lot of "nonpro vs nonpro" and "pro vs nonpro"-games as well. In detail: Lets assume, that the "nonpro vs nonpro"-games (usually master+ players) and "pro vs pro" games reflect the gamebalance somewhat due to rather equal, rather high skill level; and lets assume that there are somewhat equal amounts of Pro and Nonpro players per race, leading to the same amount of "pro vs nonpro"-games in each matchup (so the same amount of pro Ts playing nonpro Zs and pro Zs playing nonpro Ts is somewhat equal). The pro players should have a very high winrate in "pro vs nonpro"-games, pretty much independend of the actual gamebalance and matchup! If we add now the "true balance" stats of the "nonpro vs nonpro" and the "pro vs pro" games with the "~50:50"-stats of "pro vs nonpro"-games, the average will be lower than the "true balance". So under those circumstances, all the stats will always tend to be very close to 50:50 and in fact, that's what we are seeing since the beginning of those balance threads (compare the trend lines of Korea and international stats!): International and Korea nearly always show the same race being favored in a Matchup, international graphs only tend to be very close to 50:50 due to getting evened out by "pro vs nonpro" games, while in fact the game is probably way more "imbalanced" internationally. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:07 MVTaylor wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:33 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 04 2012 01:20 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 01:18 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 04 2012 00:57 ChaosTerran wrote: On March 04 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote: Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran. What you said: On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote: Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? What Blizzard said: That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. _______________________ On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote: Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread. Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken. Yeah, you are right, I probably worded that the wrong way, sorry for that. But point is, that I don't buy this "terran at lower levels are simply worse". I think it's time to accept that terran is simply harder to learn/play, hence why their win rate at lower levels is worse compared to protoss and zerg. I'm of course open for other suggestions, but imo that's the only logical explanation. Lol okay, because Terrans under performing below masters is indicative of the race being harder to play, and not that Terrans below masters are just not as good as the Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Since we're just going to make assumptions now. It's also important to note just how much lower level Terran and Protosses resort to all in builds, which are ridiculously popular at lower levels. So when they reach a certain level, that cheese stops working, and they cannot play macro games. Ladder win rates below GM cannot ever be taken as any indication of balance whatsoever, I do not see how this is even slightly difficult for anyone to understand. Yes, from your biased Terran perspective, Terran is the hardest race to play. Even if that were true, a race being harder to play does not make it under powered. Right.... terrans are just worse. Excellent argument. I'm done here, you are basically insulting every terran player in this post. This is ridiculous. Dude, are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying that you making the assumption that because Terrans in general are under performing at lower leagues means the race must be harder to play is just as bad as me making the assumption that Terrans in general are just worse than Protoss and Zergs. Both of which are untrue. You cannot, cannot, cannot ever try to balance around lower leagues. It does not work, and it has been proven time and time again through replay analysis of anyone mid masters and below that the reason they lose in games they have no idea why they lose has nothing to do with balance issues. I find it incredible that Terran has never had a win rate below 50% in any match up and people are still trying to throw out the harder to play card. Does it require more multi tasking at lower levels? Yes. But it also rewards that multi tasking equally, and the other races require just as much multi tasking at the pro level. And lastly, multi tasking is not the only indicative factor of skill in Starcraft. 1) Wrong 2) Yeah, I loved watching the ZvP finals today where DRG and Genius were microing multiple drops and a main engagement, Yes those damn overlords and warp prisms are just so good at dropping, every protoss would be dropping with 3 warp prisms at a time if they just had the multi tasking to do it. Terran drops are one of the main parts of the race, protoss and zerg players have other things to do. I don´t see how it´s required to triple drop during an engagement, it´s a fact protoss and zerg doesn´t benefit as much from multi tasking, but that doesn´t mean the players are worse at it. You are also forgetting that if a terran uses a drop, the protoss and zerg player needs to react to it, resulting in equal ammounts of multi tasking from both players. | ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
terran is sooooooo anti-terran without tanks... it's rediculous. tank is the terran poster boy, even more than the marine... exactly how to fix tank without making it OP by messing with the cost, supply or base damage of tanks.... no idea. then again, tanks would be good if terran had some kind of answer to mass chargelots. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : Show nested quote + That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:35 shizna wrote: my ideal 'fix' for terran vs protoss would be something to make tanks good against protoss... terran is sooooooo anti-terran without tanks... it's rediculous. tank is the terran poster boy, even more than the marine... exactly how to fix tank without making it OP by messing with the cost, supply or base damage of tanks.... no idea. then again, tanks would be good if terran had some kind of answer to mass chargelots. I think it would be interesting if the mobile tank version would lose its "+10 vs armored" and got a "10 vs light" instead. So the ultimate (antiground) Mech army would revolve around unsieged tanks and hellions kiting in the front (though 7range is not really the front ) and sieged tanks in the back. It would even give a nice dynamic because of the range differences of those mech units: 5 range hellions, 7range tank/thor, 13range sieged tanks, so basically all your units should always be able to fire in a combat. Also I think it would absolutly be OK vs Zerg, as zerglings should still be OK vs the tanks in the lower numbers in which you might want to use lings against mech, roaches should still be dealable, though a faster siege mode might be required if you go for a mech build with early tanks (which is rather rare imo; usually you see hellions --> thors --> tanks, due to mutalisks) might not fix mech TvP, but I think it's an interesting thought. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". | ||
freetgy
1720 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:35 shizna wrote: my ideal 'fix' for terran vs protoss would be something to make tanks good against protoss... terran is sooooooo anti-terran without tanks... it's rediculous. tank is the terran poster boy, even more than the marine... exactly how to fix tank without making it OP by messing with the cost, supply or base damage of tanks.... no idea. then again, tanks would be good if terran had some kind of answer to mass chargelots. yeah make 1-1-1 even stronger, good idea | ||
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. | ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Yeah but I guess all us Zergs are just spamming APM while all Terrans are microing 3 drops while engaging fighting with a main army. Actually, to whoever wrote that, please tell me the last time you saw a Terran micro 3 drops and an army. Most of the top pros I see just stim the drop, run to a good location behind mineral line, then a-move and afk it. Pick up marines if they have the time to. Acting like they micro the drop and while fighting, which just doesn't happen. tldr - Metagame shift in TvP = Terran is now UP. Terran still favored in ZvT = Terran is now UP. Like when Protosses said Muta/Ling was imba. Then they got better at handling it, Protoss in Korea is dominating Zerg (small sample size, but still). International ZvP is even. I do not know why this thread has descended into a Terran whine fest when these are some of the most even international graphs I've seen. Whatever. | ||
Sadist
United States6978 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". tvp outside of korea is a joke. In korea it is becoming a joke. I love how you arbitrarily set the standard as diamond level as if the problem of protoss being incredibly forgiving vs terran goes away at higher levels. TvP is incredibly unforgiving for the terran due to the nature of protoss, (warpgate, storm, chargelots, archons merging basically instantly, and the occasional colossus). | ||
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On March 04 2012 03:08 Sadist wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". tvp outside of korea is a joke. In korea it is becoming a joke. I love how you arbitrarily set the standard as diamond level as if the problem of protoss being incredibly forgiving vs terran goes away at higher levels. TvP is incredibly unforgiving for the terran due to the nature of protoss, (warpgate, storm, chargelots, archons merging basically instantly, and the occasional colossus). Yea, a large number of Korean Terrans (Clide, MKP, MVP, Dragon, and many others) have already expressed their extreme difficulties in the TvP matchup. It has nothing to do with skill levels, Terrans are struggling in TvP all the way to the top Koreans. | ||
sofakng
100 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:21 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote: On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote: I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor: -Carriers. -Thor strike cannons. -Raven Seeker Missile. -Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor. -Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins? I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. I don't care about the top players, the game is just not fun for me at a high master/gm level. These all ins are very, very viable and potent, they just aren't used enough in the EU and NA scene, on the KOR ladder about half my games are all ins. Yes they aren't used much against the likes of MMA or MKP, agreed. Neither is a 1-1-1. Also when I watch Cloud's stream he is often bitching about how protoss all ins are too strong, so I am not the only one. Any DT opening fails so hard if prepared for, I treat it as an all in. Show nested quote + It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold Because they are? You deal different with a cloak strategy then with a raven first. But it doesn't really matter, they both won't win you games anymore since patch. terran all ins are more variable and strong then protoss ones... | ||
Darksoldierr
Hungary2010 Posts
| ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I was simply quoting David Kim who as, IMO, a good view at the game statistics. | ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On March 04 2012 04:05 Darksoldierr wrote: Tank good against protoss, a new era of 1-1-1 simple solution, nerf 1base all-ins. almost everyone agrees that 1base all-ins are stupidly broken atm... RTS fundamentals usually dictate that if you scout an all-in you should always have the upper hand - in sc2 vs a good cheese you still have your ass to the wall and almost lose even with a perfect response... this cheese defense that requires pulling half of your scvs to repair 3 bunkers *sigh*... is becoming rediculous. then with 1base stuff gimped, blizz could tweak tanks (as well as other stuff)... something like changing unsieged damage to 25 instead of 15(+10 vs armoured). | ||
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
On March 04 2012 05:16 shizna wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 04:05 Darksoldierr wrote: Tank good against protoss, a new era of 1-1-1 simple solution, nerf 1base all-ins. almost everyone agrees that 1base all-ins are stupidly broken atm... RTS fundamentals usually dictate that if you scout an all-in you should always have the upper hand - in sc2 vs a good cheese you still have your ass to the wall and almost lose even with a perfect response... this cheese defense that requires pulling half of your scvs to repair 3 bunkers *sigh*... is becoming rediculous. then with 1base stuff gimped, blizz could tweak tanks (as well as other stuff)... something like changing unsieged damage to 25 instead of 15(+10 vs armoured). How exactly do you propose nerfing 1 base all ins? Outside of the 1/1/1, I think 2 base all ins are a lot deadlier than 1 base all ins... | ||
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. That has more to do with style more than anything else. We've had that issue in BW as well. | ||
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. I think that could be because of the zergs production mechanic that shows that zergs would appear to have by far highest APM. Think about it. When you select all your larvae to build some units, you hold the hotkey to build something like drones very fast and that could potentially be counted as a lot of button hits in short amount of time depending from your keyboard repeat rate by the SC2Gears. This is of course something that other races are not able replicate in any way. I could be wrong though, but it would make sense, no? If someone can confirm it that would be great. | ||
VoO
Germany278 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Playing all races as Diamond/Master and Terran as High/GM I have a consistent APM with Zerg but higher APM spikes with Terran. I guess it is a personal thing but Zerg Macro is far easier for me than Terran macro since I can concentrate on macro with Zerg and with Terran I have very micro intensive units. Furthermore I think you shouldn't choose this argument since almost no Protoss in Master have above 80 APM which doesn't allow a conclusion about their overall skill. | ||
Avril_Lavigne
United States446 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + :p | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
| ||
Vond
Sweden145 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. | ||
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Terran and zerg generate more apm by macroing than toss. When I was playing toss I had like 80 apm when I was trying really hard and as terran always around 100 without trying to play fast. | ||
ZeroTalent
United States297 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote: Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean? | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:46 ZeroTalent wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote: Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean? It's just games played in Korean tournaments, so the only foreigners you are likely to get are ones like Huk, Jinro etc playing in Korea. That's unlikely to affect the sample too much. | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:46 ZeroTalent wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote: Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu Note that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean? I think it means games from Korean tournaments, so things like GSL, KSL or Korean Weekly | ||
ZeroTalent
United States297 Posts
On March 03 2012 03:55 Ktk wrote: Dat protoss. Aligns with my personal experience in watching pro streams, replays, tournaments... Terrans are doing better than they appear? Kind of? Part of what's going on here is what people tend to count as a "real game". Somehow, holding off an all-in doesn't count, even though it does happen (P win rate before 10:00 is about 60%; strong but not great, and of course there are failed allins that result in long games so the success rate is probably much closer to 50). And then there's the human tendency to judge how things went by the amount of time spent on them. If you watch 10 non-allin TvPs, odds are you'll see 5 wins and 5 losses for each h. But the 5 Terran wins took about 18 game minutes while the 5 Protoss wins will take 22 games minutes. So even though Protoss won 50% of the games, observing those wins consumed 60% of your time. | ||
ZeroTalent
United States297 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125 (EDIT: the first is a harder nerf, since it means marines are closer to cost effective on their own vs archons). The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference. The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue. I have no idea how you would fix the TvP [strike]early game[/strike] midgame. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ... | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
On March 04 2012 07:06 Avril_Lavigne wrote: Is it just me or does this seem like the truth? + Show Spoiler + :p Yeah, two shown months of Protoss doing well against Terran, when an irrelevant Terran nerf is given. That's totally a telling tale o.O What the heck are you talking about? The bunker timing is only relevant in TvZ (think: bunkers going up at natural hatcheries), not TvP. Protoss doing okay against Terran for a short period of time had nothing to do with that bunker change. | ||
Elyvilon
United States13143 Posts
On March 04 2012 09:11 ZeroTalent wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote: On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125. The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference. The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue. I have no idea how you would fix the TvP early game. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ... There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that. | ||
ZeroTalent
United States297 Posts
On March 04 2012 09:17 Elyvilon wrote:There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that. With good scouting T can hold against one-base all-ins no sweat. The two-base all-ins are tougher, especially since it's easier for P to deny scouting at that phase of the game. From the Playhem Data, the TvP winrate in Pro v Pro matches in the 5-10 minute window Playhem is 40% for T; though surely failed allins are part of what contributes to the high T win rate in the 10-15 minute and 15-20 minute bucket. Also, unlike ZvP and TvZ, where we see more allins from top players than the hoi polloi, in TvP the Protoss players don't seem interested in ending the game early. | ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. 1. faster units, you need to be more active with them. 2. touching on the unit speed, it also enables you to more safely split your army into seperate smaller groups to scout/harrass 3. mutalisks 4. larva mechanic (presuming any queued units at CC/production buildings etc don't count as actions, even in perfect macro mode you'll queue an extra unit when your previous unit is 50-99% completed to prevent idle buildings) 5. overlord positioning i find it kind of frustrating as a terran player though, i spam quite a lot and my average APM is only ~70... it makes me feel like i'm doing something wrong. stopped playing 1v1 after a break where i became so rusty it was just humiliating... so i'm tuning up in random team games. but watching replays of my random 3v3 and 4v3 matches.... i seem to have way above average reaction time, macro, micro, actively scout and keep army semi mobile (as much as a terran can). not to mention my camera is jumping from place to place a lot faster than average players my 'level'.... yet i switch point of view to 'mr. average >100 apm' he's being completely standard with no great speed or multitasking... it's weird and annoying. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. It differs based on players, och which there are a ton. You can't generalize APM levels of races based on your subjective experiences and try to interpret them as meaning anything. | ||
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. | ||
Bro_Stone
United States510 Posts
| ||
RezChi
Canada2368 Posts
| ||
Biggun69
187 Posts
On March 03 2012 23:43 Greenei wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote: On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote: On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote: On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote: Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account. As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below high masters/GM. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. so assuming we would give for example marines 10 damage/shot, you are saying that it would not affect the ladder at all? or any patch until now had no affect at all at the ladder? that would be an incredibly stupid opinion. No. What he is saying is that at the current level of balance in the game there is no imbalance at low levels. There is nothing in the game that is fundamentally broken such as 10 shot marines, etc. | ||
Biggun69
187 Posts
On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm. | ||
Gheizen64
Italy2077 Posts
On March 04 2012 09:17 Elyvilon wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 09:11 ZeroTalent wrote: On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote: On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote: Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope. It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense. PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125. The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference. The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue. I have no idea how you would fix the TvP early game. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ... There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that. If that's really the problem simply make colossi come out faster/better and be slightly worse. For example, give them +1 base range or slightly lower movement speed or slightly lower build time and decrease the thermal lance upgrade to 8 or 8.5 final range instead of 9. Such a slight nerf would also improve PvP colossi wars into something more varied. | ||
SoylentCreep
Korea (South)176 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote: I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea International n=2208 games, korean n=363 games.... just saying mate....i wonder what the korean statistics would look like if you would include the same amout of games though. | ||
neoghaleon55
United States7434 Posts
I freaking love DRG.... somebody go buy him a brothel now! | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 04 2012 20:00 Biggun69 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote: On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm. No, spamming right click is the best way to inflate your APM. | ||
Saethwyr
United Kingdom18 Posts
Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? If Protoss remain top of winrates for 11 months I will take back everything I say of course | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:09 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 20:00 Biggun69 wrote: On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote: On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm. No, spamming right click is the best way to inflate your APM. that's just not true. You only press one key with right clicking. If you do spams on your keyboard or on your keyboard + mouse combined, you will have more APM, as you are using more fingers simultanously. But I really don't want to get into that argument. It's ridicolous how some people try make their race look "harder" by using APM as measure. As it has been pointed out, high APM often come from spam commands, but thinking about army movement, kiting, stacking units, worker micro in the beginning, optimally using abilities that are on cooldown/that barely don't have enough energy to be used, producing units... those spam actions are often what makes the difference between a good and a better player. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. | ||
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. Nah he's right, "Terran players are just better." | ||
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? If Protoss remain top of winrates for 11 months I will take back everything I say of course Protoss design will always make them feel overpower, and they will always be overpower in certain situation (I can teleport unit wherever I want, so I don't care about the map and whatever, I have a high tech unit that negate any ground unit but get negate by air unit, I have force field but the worst t1 unit in the game because if I had both I would be OP). | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:53 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. You are right, every single protoss pro player has his HTs clumped together. Your argument is so illogical it hurts my brain. If protoss is simply overpowered and all the players are bad, why doesn´t a pro terran or zerg players just switch and win all the tournaments? | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:28 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:09 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 20:00 Biggun69 wrote: On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote: On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote: On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote: On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote: On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote: Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard. Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm. No, spamming right click is the best way to inflate your APM. that's just not true. You only press one key with right clicking. If you do spams on your keyboard or on your keyboard + mouse combined, you will have more APM, as you are using more fingers simultanously. But I really don't want to get into that argument. It's ridicolous how some people try make their race look "harder" by using APM as measure. As it has been pointed out, high APM often come from spam commands, but thinking about army movement, kiting, stacking units, worker micro in the beginning, optimally using abilities that are on cooldown/that barely don't have enough energy to be used, producing units... those spam actions are often what makes the difference between a good and a better player. Yeah, I don't care about that debate aswell. But it's very easy to spam 10+ clicks on almost the same exact location, really fast, without any thought. When I was a scrub I used to spam click all the time to inflate my APM so everybody could see how amazing my APM was, and really it doubled like my average APM. I've stopped doing it ofcourse because it's not efficient, but spam clicking is really effective way to inflate your APM. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 21:53 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. you're such a hypocrite... In the other thread where you were showing me games of zerg players beating mass ghosts, I was pointing out that ogsFin/Forgg and Thorzain made a mistake and didn't split or cloak their ghosts and then the ghosts got killed by fungals and banelings, your answer was: On February 24 2012 09:46 Dalavita wrote: Suddenly, a flood of excuses. Expected no more from you. Games are defined by who makes mistakes and who doesn't. So in conclusion: if I point out that a Terran lost with mass ghosts due to a mistake, it's what defines games; if you point out that a protoss made a mistake, it's something that should not be accounted for balance... | ||
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
in MLG in GSL | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 04 2012 22:02 Hakanfrog wrote: You are right, every single protoss pro player has his HTs clumped together. Your argument is so illogical it hurts my brain. If protoss is simply overpowered and all the players are bad, why doesn´t a pro terran or zerg players just switch and win all the tournaments? This was pretty much the case in every TvP GSL since Terrans started using ghosts. Just a clusterfuck of protosses having everything clumped up and getting all their shit EMP'd. This didn't result in protosses learning to split their units, but rather EMP being nerfed. As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? On March 04 2012 22:11 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 21:53 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. you're such a hypocrite... In the other thread where you were showing me games of zerg players beating mass ghosts, I was pointing out that ogsFin/Forgg and Thorzain made a mistake and didn't split or cloak their ghosts and then the ghosts got killed by fungals and banelings, your answer was: Show nested quote + On February 24 2012 09:46 Dalavita wrote: Suddenly, a flood of excuses. Expected no more from you. Games are defined by who makes mistakes and who doesn't. So in conclusion: if I point out that a Terran lost with mass ghosts due to a mistake, it's what defines games; if you point out that a protoss made a mistake, it's something that should not be accounted for balance... Uhm, what? If you have arguments you need to be consequent with them all. If I claim that people playing badly is what causes them to lose, then yes, it shouldn't be accounted for in balance. If terrans lose with mass ghosts it's due to a mistake. Subsequently, if zergs lose to mass ghosts it also means that they made mistakes, and thus no balance change is necessary. This applies to protoss as well. If they can't split their units and get them EMP'd it's their fault and not because the game is imbalanced. If anything you're the one being the hypocrite by claiming that terrans losing with mass ghosts are doing mistakes while implying that the zergs who lose to a terran using mass ghosts clearly have no answer and were playing perfectly, since you're ok with the snipe nerf. Thank you for pointing out your own flaws. And to stay a bit on topic with the current protoss discussion. I actually agreed with the EMP nerf, and most of the terran nerfs. It still doesn't mean that protosses weren't being carried by the ease of their race and thus fell behind as far as actual skill levels went, i.e the army clumping syndrome. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? There is no reason, one might argue that they don´t want to switch race or whatever. But with so much money on the line atleast one of them should have done it by now. Claiming that all the terran players are simply better at the game is fucking retarded. It is so extremely unlikely that it is ridiculous to suggest it. If it is as you seem to be implying, that it is easier to succeed as protoss several players would switch to win money easier, but this obviously isn´t the case. I actually haven´t heard of a single pro gamer switching races to protoss. | ||
Arcanefrost
Belgium1257 Posts
| ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 04 2012 23:55 Hakanfrog wrote: @Dalavita (cba to fix quotes) As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? There is no reason, one might argue that they don´t want to switch race or whatever. But with so much money on the line atleast one of them should have done it by now. Claiming that all the terran players are simply better at the game is fucking retarded. It is so extremely unlikely that it is ridiculous to suggest it. If it is as you seem to be implying, that it is easier to succeed as protoss several players would switch to win money easier, but this obviously isn´t the case. I actually haven´t heard of a single pro gamer switching races to protoss. Statistical probability doesn't mean a thing in the absolute top levels of play that's consistently determined by the same 20-30 people. If someone is good and plays race X, that race will have the better win rates on average. Arguing anything but the fact that terrans have the highest amount of pros, i.e the guys who smash on other pro's like they were amateurs, is lying to yourself at this stage. I haven't claimed that all terrans are better at the game, rather than just about every top level protoss is worse in comparison because of the ease of the race. There are two, max three protosses that can contend with the rest of the terrans and zergs at the top level. The rest are on a lower level, but can play at around the same competitive level because of the race. However because of this, when it comes to doing things like splitting HTs or staggering them so they won't get EMP'd, they don't do it, and subsequently get killed. This is reflected in the win percentages, and the race gets buffed/the opposite race gets nerfed. The snipe or thor change is probably the best example of Blizzard catering to worse players. The thor energy nerf happened because of one tournament, and the snipe change happened after MVP and pretty much MVP alone did it in GSL to kill brood lords a couple of times. If people would be switching races after the flavor of the month, the one time everyone would be doing it is when the game was released as well, when zergs and protosses were getting destroyed. This didn't happen either. Maybe the difficulty difference isn't that big, or maybe they believe that Blizzard will eventually even things out, or maybe they like their race, which goes especially for korean terran players who have BW backgrounds with BW legends mostly being terran. Besides. If someone is doing well, I don't see why they should switch to another race, even if it was easier, since I assume the pros you were wondering about were the GSL Code S terrans. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 04 2012 23:38 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 22:02 Hakanfrog wrote: You are right, every single protoss pro player has his HTs clumped together. Your argument is so illogical it hurts my brain. If protoss is simply overpowered and all the players are bad, why doesn´t a pro terran or zerg players just switch and win all the tournaments? This was pretty much the case in every TvP GSL since Terrans started using ghosts. Just a clusterfuck of protosses having everything clumped up and getting all their shit EMP'd. This didn't result in protosses learning to split their units, but rather EMP being nerfed. As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 22:11 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:53 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. you're such a hypocrite... In the other thread where you were showing me games of zerg players beating mass ghosts, I was pointing out that ogsFin/Forgg and Thorzain made a mistake and didn't split or cloak their ghosts and then the ghosts got killed by fungals and banelings, your answer was: On February 24 2012 09:46 Dalavita wrote: Suddenly, a flood of excuses. Expected no more from you. Games are defined by who makes mistakes and who doesn't. So in conclusion: if I point out that a Terran lost with mass ghosts due to a mistake, it's what defines games; if you point out that a protoss made a mistake, it's something that should not be accounted for balance... Uhm, what? If you have arguments you need to be consequent with them all. If I claim that people playing badly is what causes them to lose, then yes, it shouldn't be accounted for in balance. If terrans lose with mass ghosts it's due to a mistake. Subsequently, if zergs lose to mass ghosts it also means that they made mistakes, and thus no balance change is necessary. This applies to protoss as well. If they can't split their units and get them EMP'd it's their fault and not because the game is imbalanced. If anything you're the one being the hypocrite by claiming that terrans losing with mass ghosts are doing mistakes while implying that the zergs who lose to a terran using mass ghosts clearly have no answer and were playing perfectly, since you're ok with the snipe nerf. Thank you for pointing out your own flaws. lol, after being a hypocrite, you are now trying to strawman me. You know, it's quite funny from my perspective, because I know that you know from all the discussion that we have had, that I was not thinking that the snipe nerf was needed. It's really poor of you to make it sound as if I were, while I have said noumerous times that such a huge nerf was not necessary. And no, I never ever went close to implying zergs were playing perfectly. That's just a made up thing so that you have something to support your straw man. If anything, by giving in and saying that I count the Thorzain vs Stephano game as a game in which Zerg countered a Terran that had mass ghosts , I was implying that I think it is quite OK for both sides to make mistakes. Also why would it be a subsequence of Terran losing with mass ghosts to Zerg being a mistake, that Zerg losing to mass ghosts is a mistake as well. You really should check your logic. Funny example of that kind of "logic": If a car driver fails to run you over, it's the cardrivers mistake. If the cardriver succeeds in driving you over, it's your mistake... lol | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
Are you saying that the bad players chose protoss, or that the protoss race made the players bad? | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
On March 05 2012 00:14 IdrA wrote: isnt that amazing Hahahahahahahaha. I always love your comments Was Zerg always underperforming though? Perhaps compared to Terran, but not always compared to Protoss, right? | ||
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On March 04 2012 23:55 Hakanfrog wrote: @Dalavita (cba to fix quotes) As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? There is no reason, one might argue that they don´t want to switch race or whatever. But with so much money on the line atleast one of them should have done it by now. Claiming that all the terran players are simply better at the game is fucking retarded. It is so extremely unlikely that it is ridiculous to suggest it. If it is as you seem to be implying, that it is easier to succeed as protoss several players would switch to win money easier, but this obviously isn´t the case. I actually haven´t heard of a single pro gamer switching races to protoss. Switch race is really hard, your argument is sensless. Pros had played thousand of games with Terran and noone with Protoss. This is stupid to become much weaker and lose all tournament by switching race because he can't compete at the same level. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 05 2012 00:24 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 23:38 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 22:02 Hakanfrog wrote: You are right, every single protoss pro player has his HTs clumped together. Your argument is so illogical it hurts my brain. If protoss is simply overpowered and all the players are bad, why doesn´t a pro terran or zerg players just switch and win all the tournaments? This was pretty much the case in every TvP GSL since Terrans started using ghosts. Just a clusterfuck of protosses having everything clumped up and getting all their shit EMP'd. This didn't result in protosses learning to split their units, but rather EMP being nerfed. As for why terrans don't switch races. I don't know, ask them? On March 04 2012 22:11 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:53 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:34 Big J wrote: On March 04 2012 21:29 Dalavita wrote: On March 04 2012 21:13 Saethwyr wrote: I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate. Then Feb they just nick it and its: "Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out". I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play? Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it? Getting buffed because their top players are worse than the opposition helps out as well. Getting buffed because their top players performed worse than the opposition helps out as well. When after a year of practicing protoss players still can't split their HTs to avoid them getting EMP'd, I'm willing to consider it player error rather than race issues. you're such a hypocrite... In the other thread where you were showing me games of zerg players beating mass ghosts, I was pointing out that ogsFin/Forgg and Thorzain made a mistake and didn't split or cloak their ghosts and then the ghosts got killed by fungals and banelings, your answer was: On February 24 2012 09:46 Dalavita wrote: Suddenly, a flood of excuses. Expected no more from you. Games are defined by who makes mistakes and who doesn't. So in conclusion: if I point out that a Terran lost with mass ghosts due to a mistake, it's what defines games; if you point out that a protoss made a mistake, it's something that should not be accounted for balance... Uhm, what? If you have arguments you need to be consequent with them all. If I claim that people playing badly is what causes them to lose, then yes, it shouldn't be accounted for in balance. If terrans lose with mass ghosts it's due to a mistake. Subsequently, if zergs lose to mass ghosts it also means that they made mistakes, and thus no balance change is necessary. This applies to protoss as well. If they can't split their units and get them EMP'd it's their fault and not because the game is imbalanced. If anything you're the one being the hypocrite by claiming that terrans losing with mass ghosts are doing mistakes while implying that the zergs who lose to a terran using mass ghosts clearly have no answer and were playing perfectly, since you're ok with the snipe nerf. Thank you for pointing out your own flaws. lol, after being a hypocrite, you are now trying to strawman me. You know, it's quite funny from my perspective, because I know that you know from all the discussion that we have had, that I was not thinking that the snipe nerf was needed. It's really poor of you to make it sound as if I were, while I have said noumerous times that such a huge nerf was not necessary. And no, I never ever went close to implying zergs were playing perfectly. That's just a made up thing so that you have something to support your straw man. If anything, by giving in and saying that I count the Thorzain vs Stephano game as a game in which Zerg countered a Terran that had mass ghosts , I was implying that I think it is quite OK for both sides to make mistakes. Also why would it be a subsequence of Terran losing with mass ghosts to Zerg being a mistake, that Zerg losing to mass ghosts is a mistake as well. You really should check your logic. Funny example of that kind of "logic": If a car driver fails to run you over, it's the cardrivers mistake. If the cardriver succeeds in driving you over, it's your mistake... lol I had the impression that you thought the snipe nerf was needed, even if to a lesser degree, which would mean that it was too strong in the matchup in your mind, when there was zero proof of it, but I apologize if that was not the case. But you shouldn't expect me to remember every opinion of every person whom I argue with. I'm glad you noticed the strawman. It was there the exaggerate the flaw in your thinking. If terrans who lose to zergs make mistakes when they have mass ghosts, zergs must subsequently be doing mistakes to lose to mass ghosts. The reason for this is that we have no proof otherwise. There are very few games played, and the games have gone both ways. The only terran with real success using mass ghosts has been MVP. Not having this stance suggests that you're biased towards one side, which your terrible example shows, where only one occurence of the two alternatives is good one (zerg winning/driver missing vs terran winning/driver hitting the pedestrian). On March 05 2012 00:27 Hakanfrog wrote: Well if the race is so easy than a task such as splitting HTs should be no problem at all. We almost never see high level protoss players not splitting HTs, some even use warp prisms which is even harder to micro. You still have no proof that protoss is simply better than terran and zerg, it is just your own opinion yet you state it as a fact. Were we watching the same games? Protoss players were struggling with splitting HTs and their armies up until the EMP nerf hit. Hell, you could even argue that the EMP radius nerf has made it so foolproof that you can't clump up your HT's by negligence to get them all hit anymore. Edit: Also, no shit it's my opinion. Do you want a disclaimer? On March 05 2012 00:27 Hakanfrog wrote: Are you saying that the bad players chose protoss, or that the protoss race made the players bad? The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
Were you watching the same finals as I did? One game he went for carriers for whatever reason, he then did a stupid all in for another weird reason, the two games he won he actually played great. I think he played well on Crossfire aswell, but it´s Crossfire -.- His road to the finals has not been easy, on the way he beat: DRG, SC, Nestea, MKP, MC and Alive. If any protoss deserved to be in the finals, its him. How would he even reach the finals if he wasn´t good. I´m just going to stop arguing with you now since you base all your arguments that protoss is easier and the protoss players are worse without backing it up with any evidence whatsoever. I didn´t watch much GSL last year btw so if you say protoss players never split their hts im gonna have to take your word for it. However from what I have seen from this season several protosses have played at the same level of the best terran and zerg players. | ||
Spec
Taiwan931 Posts
| ||
creamer
Canada128 Posts
| ||
GleaM
United States207 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. Unless you are extremely high international GM, you can't use Korean stats to argue balance. League? | ||
Fix637
United States256 Posts
I'm interested if someone can find an exact reasoning for this massive shift within the last month. Protoss have been doing better and better, and we're beginning to hear cries of "toss imba" etc. Was there a pivotal occurrence that caused this? Or is it a slow shift in the meta-game that's occurred over time? | ||
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
On March 05 2012 04:35 Fix637 wrote: So it's pretty obvious that Protoss are doing markedly better in February, with big jumps across the board. I'm interested if someone can find an exact reasoning for this massive shift within the last month. Protoss have been doing better and better, and we're beginning to hear cries of "toss imba" etc. Was there a pivotal occurrence that caused this? Or is it a slow shift in the meta-game that's occurred over time? patch 1.4 | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 05 2012 04:35 Fix637 wrote: So it's pretty obvious that Protoss are doing markedly better in February, with big jumps across the board. I'm interested if someone can find an exact reasoning for this massive shift within the last month. Protoss have been doing better and better, and we're beginning to hear cries of "toss imba" etc. Was there a pivotal occurrence that caused this? Or is it a slow shift in the meta-game that's occurred over time? mixture of both. Patch 1.4.0-1.4.3 slowly buffed Protoss and nerfed some of the major XvP units like ghosts and infestors. That aside, double Forge builds vs Terran and things like zealot+1, blink+2 timings vs Zerg, and more warp prism useage (after the WP buff) had quite an impact on the metagame. | ||
SiroKO
France721 Posts
I think the situations is currently much worse, particulary in the lategame, than what the charts are showing. I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. I saw Genius executing a perfect timing push vs DRG in GSL final g1, just before broodlords. Sure that was nice, but that's not a long-term solution... Well, the longterm solution might be hots... | ||
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
However I'd like to add one more element that I can't emphasize enough, but had a large impact on balance, the Maps. Basically, during 2011, the GSL and then other tournaments, slowly started moving away from smaller, more open and terran favored map and towards large, more safe and more macro orientated maps. Maps like Shattered Temple, Metalopolis, Xel'Naga Caverns that encourage fast and aggressive play, where removed first. Bigger macro maps like Tal'Darim Altar, Shakuras Plateau and Terminus started to be prioritized. Maps with some form of weird or uni-dimensional features, where then removed too, like Shakuras, because the mid encourages too much split map, Tal"Darim because of the rocks on 3rd and Terminus, because it's basically gives you 2 very easy to defend expansions right of the bat. A new generation of maps, not made by Blizzard, started to be used, like Daybreak, Bel'Shir Beach, Dualsight etc. Over time even these where tweaked a bit if they had issues, the maps that could be fixed remained, the maps that couldn't be fixed where axed. Now towards the end of the cycle Blizzard itself has started to adhere more to tournament standards and made much more friendly natural expansions and much less hard to take 3rds and 4ths on their own maps, as well as accepting community made maps and now soon to add GSL maps. Now, the problem with these newer maps is that. They lean towards macro way, way too much, just like leaning towards too much aggressive features can make some maps unplayable or broken, so can too much defensiveness be a bad thing. Long rush distances, tight chokes, easy to expand to and defend bases make it easier and more profitable to macro, so early aggression starts to get snuffed out more and more. This is the trend I've noticed the most in Season 1 of the GSL from this year. And the biggest problem though, is that Protoss seems to benefit the most from these defensive map features, allowing them to safely turtle and tech to the ultimate composition. Very boring if you see to many of these situations, and very problematic to prevent with all these features, not to mention how hard it is to stop when it gets going. In my opinion the better solution was to tweak protoss more to work on more aggressive maps, and without the reliance on superior tech. As is though, the cumulative combination of patches and map trends has lead to this February's results. | ||
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On March 05 2012 05:19 EmilA wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? Not what I said. OP against Terran for sure, but the so called Protoss deathball is definitely overrated and counterd by corruptors/broodlords/infestors spines. Answer to that composition might be "do not let them go there", as mentionned before, but I don't see it as a viable strat, plus it wouldn't change the fact that Protoss deathball is totally overrated. | ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 05 2012 05:21 SiroKO wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 05:19 EmilA wrote: On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? Not what I said. OP against Terran for sure, but the so called Protoss deathball is definitely overrated and counterd by corruptors/broodlords/infestors spines. Answer to that composition might be "do not let them go there", as mentionned before, but I don't see it as a viable strat, plus it wouldn't change the fact that Protoss deathball is totally overrated. Archon toilet, have you heard of it? It's quite powerful. | ||
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On March 05 2012 05:24 hunts wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 05:21 SiroKO wrote: On March 05 2012 05:19 EmilA wrote: On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? Not what I said. OP against Terran for sure, but the so called Protoss deathball is definitely overrated and counterd by corruptors/broodlords/infestors spines. Answer to that composition might be "do not let them go there", as mentionned before, but I don't see it as a viable strat, plus it wouldn't change the fact that Protoss deathball is totally overrated. Archon toilet, have you heard of it? It's quite powerful. At least read the posts you're quoting, he mentioned that specifically. | ||
SiroKO
France721 Posts
| ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 05 2012 05:26 Dfgj wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 05:24 hunts wrote: On March 05 2012 05:21 SiroKO wrote: On March 05 2012 05:19 EmilA wrote: On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? Not what I said. OP against Terran for sure, but the so called Protoss deathball is definitely overrated and counterd by corruptors/broodlords/infestors spines. Answer to that composition might be "do not let them go there", as mentionned before, but I don't see it as a viable strat, plus it wouldn't change the fact that Protoss deathball is totally overrated. Archon toilet, have you heard of it? It's quite powerful. At least read the posts you're quoting, he mentioned that specifically. Actually it's not mentioned in the post I quoted, perhaps you should read it? All the post says is that the P deathball is "totally overrated." | ||
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
Instead I'm just happy I didn't imagine things when watching GSL and believing there was at least some seriousness in the tweets by nestea and so on about how hard ZvP can be. As for the "needs PvZ another patch" debate: I think international scene doesn't really matter. Individual mistakes imo are too important at that level. Korean winrates are what is important, if there is a large enough number of games going into it. Should there be a patch? This really needs more insight and analysis then I can provide, so I guess this question should be left to blizz and the more intelligent pros. | ||
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On March 05 2012 06:04 hunts wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 05:26 Dfgj wrote: On March 05 2012 05:24 hunts wrote: On March 05 2012 05:21 SiroKO wrote: On March 05 2012 05:19 EmilA wrote: On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet or some other gimmicks.. Yeah.. protoss lategame is underpowered. What am I reading? Not what I said. OP against Terran for sure, but the so called Protoss deathball is definitely overrated and counterd by corruptors/broodlords/infestors spines. Answer to that composition might be "do not let them go there", as mentionned before, but I don't see it as a viable strat, plus it wouldn't change the fact that Protoss deathball is totally overrated. Archon toilet, have you heard of it? It's quite powerful. At least read the posts you're quoting, he mentioned that specifically. Actually it's not mentioned in the post I quoted, perhaps you should read it? All the post says is that the P deathball is "totally overrated." Really? On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: I haven't yet see a single Protoss beating a lategame bl/corruptors/infestors/mass spine composition without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: without zerg messing up his control to an archon toilet On March 05 2012 05:11 SiroKO wrote: archon toilet, motherfucker, look at me Read the posts. All of them. | ||
Roachu
Sweden692 Posts
| ||
Elean
689 Posts
| ||
msjakofsky
1169 Posts
On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM | ||
Primadog
United States4411 Posts
| ||
msjakofsky
1169 Posts
On March 05 2012 10:03 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM you don't "protoss your way to the finals" in the hardest competition in the world, lol dude get real. he beat fucking nestea, drg, marineking, sc, alive. most of these guys have a really good vP record. and most of these guys have a good record vs MC who you consider top skilled. your opinion doesn't make sense at all. also top was never an amazing player. he was pretty good but not amazing. july is terribly inconsistent and has too obvious flaws in his play for a code s finalist. Rain and MKP cheesed their way to the finals. those were textbook examples of "terraning" the way to the finals. you're a bitter terran/zerg player who doesn't have arguments and you even admit it... "I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game"- you call someone who stomped like 6-7 world's top class players in the ground unworthy for the finals, yet someone who cheeses with 2 rax scv pull in every game was worthy for the finals because you think he was skilled. bottom line, you define who is skilled and worthy and not necessarily based on the game, just cuz you like it that way. also i wonder what were your thoughts when zerg and terran had ridiculous winrates vs protoss a few months ago, btw the race with the worst results overall, and not much changed that affected the matchups in a major way bar the metagame. you know you shouldn't argue with that mentality in a place where there might be adults or people who have just a tiny ability to remain objective. i'm pretty sure this reply is utterly futile from me and you'll go on with your nonsense but somehow i had the mood to write it | ||
FlamingTurd
United States1059 Posts
| ||
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. | ||
RUS RO DAH!!!
United States277 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
On March 05 2012 14:03 RUS RO DAH!!! wrote: Moral of the story: If you whine enough Blizzard will buff your race. Might also be a reason why T gets nerfed almost every patch. Since terran players are shamed for playing terran by the SCII community they aren't as vocal with their opinions as P or Z hence they become more likely targets for nerfs. Couple with the fact that the majority of foreign pros and casters play P or Z, their is a tendency for bias to be skewed in favor of those races. Happens in tournaments, interviews, STOG... Moral of the story: You should probably look at the previous months of data before posting again. Also, STOG? | ||
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On March 05 2012 14:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 14:03 RUS RO DAH!!! wrote: Moral of the story: If you whine enough Blizzard will buff your race. Might also be a reason why T gets nerfed almost every patch. Since terran players are shamed for playing terran by the SCII community they aren't as vocal with their opinions as P or Z hence they become more likely targets for nerfs. Couple with the fact that the majority of foreign pros and casters play P or Z, their is a tendency for bias to be skewed in favor of those races. Happens in tournaments, interviews, STOG... Moral of the story: You should probably look at the previous months of data before posting again. Also, STOG? SOTG is very protoss biased, and very rarely features a terran player. It mostly consists of artosis, tyler, incontrol (all protosses), jp (who doesn't really play, as far I know) and some quest who is occasionally Terran but is usually Idra. YOU should be the one looking at previous data. Terran, in January, wasn't the strongest race. However, we still got nerfed, even though Zerg was the most imbalanced race not Terran. Please follow your own advice before posting again. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42202 Posts
On March 05 2012 15:18 kofman wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 14:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: On March 05 2012 14:03 RUS RO DAH!!! wrote: Moral of the story: If you whine enough Blizzard will buff your race. Might also be a reason why T gets nerfed almost every patch. Since terran players are shamed for playing terran by the SCII community they aren't as vocal with their opinions as P or Z hence they become more likely targets for nerfs. Couple with the fact that the majority of foreign pros and casters play P or Z, their is a tendency for bias to be skewed in favor of those races. Happens in tournaments, interviews, STOG... Moral of the story: You should probably look at the previous months of data before posting again. Also, STOG? SOTG is very protoss biased, and very rarely features a terran player. It mostly consists of artosis, tyler, incontrol (all protosses), jp (who doesn't really play, as far I know) and some quest who is occasionally Terran but is usually Idra. YOU should be the one looking at previous data. Terran, in January, wasn't the strongest race. However, we still got nerfed, even though Zerg was the most imbalanced race not Terran. Please follow your own advice before posting again. First of all, Terran has consistently been the strongest race for the longest period of time. So for RUSRODAH to claim that all you need to do is whine and you'll get buffed or nerfed (as opposed to actually have stats backing up reasons for deserving buffs or nerfs) was absurd and what I was pointing out. Second, it seems you need a lesson in reading comprehension. Go look at the January graphs. Note that Terran is beating both Zerg and Protoss in the TvZ and TvP match-ups, as is the norm for both graphs. The only reason why the Zerg bar is slightly higher on the overall graph is because ZvP happened to be ridiculously one-sided for that one specific month, and that overwhelmed that stat and boosted it over both other races in the overall percentages. However, that doesn't mean that Terran wasn't still beating both other races overall in the individual graphs. Learn to read. Last time I checked, the ZvP graph says nothing about how well the Terrans are doing, but I'm always glad to point out a red herring. And I only pointed out "STOG" because he was too busy posting nonsense to even write out an acronym properly. I'm well aware of State of the Game, but not STOG. And I'm fairly certain that Blizzard takes all pro-gamers' voices into account, rather than *only* SOTG, considering that's what Blizzard has announced (several times) they use for feedback (among other outlets). Why SOTG would directly cause Protoss patches just because there are Protoss speakers... I think you have a correlation implies causation problem there. Maybe RUSRODAH should stop trolling the forum with "Whining = Blizzard will buff your race" and pay more attention to his arguments and spelling, and you should learn how to read some winrate graphs and follow all the actual arguments that have been discussed by all the pro-gamers and players (not just the ones on SOTG). | ||
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
ZvP and TvZ are both pretty even, but PvT needs some changes. | ||
msjakofsky
1169 Posts
On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
Ewic
Canada121 Posts
On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. | ||
horsebanger
141 Posts
On March 05 2012 19:31 Ewic wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. lmfao i wonder what race you play | ||
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
| ||
Ewic
Canada121 Posts
On March 05 2012 19:35 horsebanger wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 19:31 Ewic wrote: On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. lmfao i wonder what race you play You wonder? It says in my signature that I play Terran. People who don't offer any sort of counter-arguments to what I say and only bash are a big reason why talented players choose not to post their opinions on balance. I'm sorry I ever posted here. | ||
Breach_hu
Hungary2431 Posts
On March 05 2012 19:31 Ewic wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. there are a lot of weird shit a terran can throw at toss, but if the toss has brain and an average control, he can definitely hold everything with standard play and some camping. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 05 2012 12:35 msjakofsky wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 10:03 Dalavita wrote: On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM you don't "protoss your way to the finals" in the hardest competition in the world, lol dude get real. he beat fucking nestea, drg, marineking, sc, alive. most of these guys have a really good vP record. and most of these guys have a good record vs MC who you consider top skilled. your opinion doesn't make sense at all. also top was never an amazing player. he was pretty good but not amazing. july is terribly inconsistent and has too obvious flaws in his play for a code s finalist. Rain and MKP cheesed their way to the finals. those were textbook examples of "terraning" the way to the finals. you're a bitter terran/zerg player who doesn't have arguments and you even admit it... "I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game"- you call someone who stomped like 6-7 world's top class players in the ground unworthy for the finals, yet someone who cheeses with 2 rax scv pull in every game was worthy for the finals because you think he was skilled. bottom line, you define who is skilled and worthy and not necessarily based on the game, just cuz you like it that way. also i wonder what were your thoughts when zerg and terran had ridiculous winrates vs protoss a few months ago, btw the race with the worst results overall, and not much changed that affected the matchups in a major way bar the metagame. you know you shouldn't argue with that mentality in a place where there might be adults or people who have just a tiny ability to remain objective. i'm pretty sure this reply is utterly futile from me and you'll go on with your nonsense but somehow i had the mood to write it Of course, you should only respond when you're in the mood for it. When else? It's true that you can't simply waltz your way to the GSL finals, but it's enough to be a mediocre pro and be protoss to get to the GSL finals the way Genius did, i.e protossing your way to the finals. Top has always been an amazing player, and his first game against MVP in their finals showed off his skills like nothing else could. There has been nothing Genius has done that has been impressive over the time I've seen him play. All he's done is do shitty all-ins, control them poorly yet still get ahead, or rely on the strength of the protoss deathball in TvP to carry him through, like against Alive, only to crumble in a finals setting when there are multiple games back to back, after horrendous play in at least three of the games, and that's not counting the carrier game. MKP showed his level of skill in the seasons where he got to the finals. He fucking invented the marine splitting, and anyone doubting his skill after watching him play vs Kyrix is insane. It's irrelevant if he all-ined his way to the finals or played massive macro games when he was heads and tails above everyone in that tournament. In retrospect, Genius or Inca have done nothing nearly as impressive in their plays EVER. The most impressive thing Genius has ever done is pull an injured void ray away from non-stimmed marine while doing a bust, and his finals games showed his lack of refinement and game sense. I'll define who is skilled or not based on watching their games for a long period of time. Over that period of time I have seen very few protoss players show me anything that's remotely impressive, and you can bet your ass that I'm a bitter player because I spent ages being optimistic and hoping that Blizzard would eventually make the game better in HotS or open protoss up by making it more micro friendly and harder to play, and after retarded decisions like the phoenix/snipe change and looking at what hots is bringing to the table, is enough to make anyone who cares about the entertainment value of the game rather than his personal races wellbeing bitter. Instead of making protoss harder to play, they're moving to make terran as easy in the lategame. Everyone should be bitter about the state of protoss right now. The race is shoehorned into the game and is awfully designed. | ||
msjakofsky
1169 Posts
On March 05 2012 19:31 Ewic wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. lol, dude. you distinguish all these 4gate versions (btw i challenge you to show me games of your every allin from gsl... i'm not sure most of those happened at all, even unsuccessful) then you say 1-1-1 which has like 10 different versions, leave out ghost rush, supply drop rush, 2rax, blueflame drop, helion/marauder, etc etc. too biased. i'd understand if you whine about protoss lategame (it's not as bad as you guys make it sound, but definitely protoss favored after a point i agree), but rly early game allins? 90% of those only could work if the terran goes cc first, in the 1base allin race vs race fight terran is definitely heads above zerg and protoss... i mean come on, it wasn't that long ago when like every protoss was 1-1-1'd out of the gsl, and it still doesn't have a safe counter build, and mention 3 versions of 4gate which are easily held with 1-2 bunkers and scv repair. or is it frustration from ladder? | ||
Hakanfrog
Sweden690 Posts
On March 05 2012 10:03 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM I´d like to point out that the "mediocre" protoss beat the "respectable" protoss 3-0. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:20 msjakofsky wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 19:31 Ewic wrote: On March 05 2012 19:09 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 13:51 avilo wrote: On March 04 2012 01:05 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:55 SeaSwift wrote: On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote: On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote: For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP. Of course, that might be problem. And we can know this to be true because... you said so. I've seen posts from players like BeastyQT and Cloud basically saying the same thing, strelok just yesterday was telling on his stream how you just need to be better much better then the protoss to win playing completely standard. Why do you think no foreign Terran has won a major tournament in 1.5 years. It's completely true. Right now TvP is in shambles, it's past the point of "Terrans figuring it out." There blatantly is a p>t balance problem right now for many, many reasons. A lot of people like to pretend all is fine and hunky dory, but it's sadly not right now. The question is, is blizzard not fixing lategame TvP right now (lategame tvz not much better) because they are waiting for HOTS to magically fix it? Or are they simply just taking their good old time? You do in fact have to play much, much better than the protoss player to win lategame TvP right now. Or you have to get lucky/diceroll with medivac drops, but that rarely works nowadays. As for T all-ins, all of them were patched into oblivion, none of the protoss related gateway allins, stargate+gateway or robo+gateway allins were patched at all, which makes the match-up even more difficult for Terrans because you either are playing against a dice roll or you are playing a straight up macro game with a disadvantage due to the balance of the match-up lategame right now. It'll be interesting to see what blizzard is doing right now to address the obvious problem. Yes, it is a problem. what a terrible post. you're too busy whining about an 5 second build time nerf for barracks to remember warpgate/blink/void ray etc nerfs, aren't you. you shouldn't post here ever again with such blatant misinformative crap. also not like terran 1-base allins aren't still infinite times better than any of the other 2 races' and i don't really remember any patch touching them directly to a significant degree, besides that 5 second nerf or maybe a onebase ghost rush I just want to point something out about Terran/Protoss 1 base all-ins in TvP: All-ins Terran has to worry about: -4 Gate -3 Gate Blink Stalker (Into 4 Gate) -3 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate VoidRay -4 Gate Warp Prism -3 Gate Immortal Bust -DT Drop All-ins Protoss has to worry about: -1-1-1 -Marine Stim/Combat +1 Medivac timing Even if I missed 1 or 2 Terran all-ins and unfairly added Protoss all-ins, there are still clearly many more all-ins the Terran has to worry about. Each one you HAVE to be prepared for in different ways or else the all-in will do enough damage to warrant the attack. It gets even worse when it's 2-base... No, Terran all-ins aren't "infinite" times better than other races either. Anyways, stop bashing pointlessly. Avilo is a high GM player on a good team. He knows what he's talking about. lol, dude. you distinguish all these 4gate versions (btw i challenge you to show me games of your every allin from gsl... i'm not sure most of those happened at all, even unsuccessful) then you say 1-1-1 which has like 10 different versions, leave out ghost rush, supply drop rush, 2rax, blueflame drop, helion/marauder, etc etc. too biased. i'd understand if you whine about protoss lategame (it's not as bad as you guys make it sound, but definitely protoss favored after a point i agree), but rly early game allins? 90% of those only could work if the terran goes cc first, in the 1base allin race vs race fight terran is definitely heads above zerg and protoss... i mean come on, it wasn't that long ago when like every protoss was 1-1-1'd out of the gsl, and it still doesn't have a safe counter build, and mention 3 versions of 4gate which are easily held with 1-2 bunkers and scv repair. or is it frustration from ladder? QFT... Though terran tears are nice every once in a while | ||
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
But, looking at the numbers, Overall win rate around the world, so including Korea, is pretty much perfectly balanced for every race, while being super Protoss favored in every match up in Korea... Logically, that means that if you excluded Korea from the overall winrate and that you are only keeping foreigners numbers, Protoss are actually at the lower end of the graph. Not by much, but still under 50% in each match up outside Korea. If those numbers include only high level play... that means that Terran are actually beating protoss more than 50% of the time outside Korea. So, actually, the "Protoss is WAY easier to play" seems like bullshit to me. And i'm actually playing Zerg and Terran... so no, it's not bias talking... i'm just looking at numbers. | ||
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:25 Hakanfrog wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 10:03 Dalavita wrote: On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM I´d like to point out that the "mediocre" protoss beat the "respectable" protoss 3-0. That's PVP for you. | ||
Koshi
Belgium38331 Posts
| ||
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:54 Dalavita wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 22:25 Hakanfrog wrote: On March 05 2012 10:03 Dalavita wrote: On March 05 2012 09:24 msjakofsky wrote: On March 05 2012 00:41 Dalavita wrote: The better players chose terran, because of the BW heritage, and protoss players improved at a slower rate compared to the other races because of the ease of the race. There are examples that stand out, but at this stage, most of the top tier protosses are significantly worse than their zerg/terran buddies. A recent example is the Genius vs DRG finals where Genius was outskilled by quite a bit by his opponent, or even Inca vs Nestea. I can't think of one terran or zerg who reached the GSL finals who wasn't a top tier beast. you're so full of male cattle excrement... implying that top, rain, july, losira are much better players than genius or mc. that one sentence made your opinion invalid and mkp cheesing in 90% of his games in open season 2. he became a legit player but he literally cheesed in almost every game. also comparing genius to inca. lol genius had a ridiculously hard road to the finals. your bias is so strong and irrational that it makes your opinion hard to take seriously Top is an amazing player, and so is Losira. I don't even remember the rain GSL run so I'll give you that one, and July played a style of zerg that fit extremely well with the metagame when he got to the GSL finals by being stupid aggressive and busting terrans down when everyone else were playing passively. Also, I haven't mentioned MC. He's one of the few protosses who got respectable top tier skills. Genius is my textbook definition of a mediocre protoss protossing his way to the finals. MKP has always ALWAYS been a top tier player. I don't care if he cheeses his way to a finals as long as he's actually skilled at the game. He would have gotten to the finals regardless of cheese or macro games and the only reason he lost against Nestea was because he choked hard. + Show Spoiler + You like the male cattle excrement don't you? OM NOM NOM I´d like to point out that the "mediocre" protoss beat the "respectable" protoss 3-0. That's PVP for you. It's hilarious how you first talk about "Protossing" your way to the finals when there have been the fewest Protoss finalists out of all 3 races. If it's so easy, then why was Genius the first Protoss to make Code S finals in well over half a year? Your ridiculous claim of one "Protossing" one's way to the finals implies that any mediocre Protoss can simply "Protoss" his way through a list of opponents that includes MC, DRG, Nestea, sC, MKP, and aLive. Then, when someone brings up how Genius 3-0 swept MC (the only matchup that you can't complain about balance in), you just say "lol PvP" despite the fact that players like MC, Oz, and Inca managed to have extremely consistent PvP winrates at various points despite claims that it's a coinflip matchup. Same with Nestea and DRG vZ. People have, in the past, complained that it's a coinflip too, but in the end, some players simply make supposedly coin-flippy mirrors work with superior decisionmaking, control, mindgames, and overall skill. Furthermore, one of those games was clearly Genius beating MC in a long macro game, long past the period of coinflippiness. Meanwhile, you conveniently bring up how Genius was "outskilled" by his opponent in the finals, while ignoring that Genius 2-0'd DRG in the group stages (Oh, and if you want to talk about getting "outskilled" by an opponent in the finals, how about the fact that MKP is the player most well-known for losing in the finals? Oh wait, your excuse is that he "choked hard" against Nestea. Tell me, why don't you also give Genius the same benefit of doubt, that he "choked hard"? Because you think MKP is better and thus believe he was capable of better play? Well, so was Genius - just look at how he 2-0'd DRG on his way to the finals) There's clearly no point in continuing this discussion because of how biased you are, but I just figured I'd call you out on all of your BS before continuing my studying. I'm admittedly a Protoss fan myself, but at least I give credit to all races where credit is due. Despite my dislike of MKP, he's a very damn strong player, and I'd put him as a favorite literally any Protoss right now because his TvP has looked so good. DRG is great. MVP is great. Nestea is great. MC is great. MMA is great. Though he's been slipping off, Bomber in top form is fucking amazing. And, as this season as shown me, Genius is quite good as well - you could hardly ask for a more difficult path to the finals (which is, I might add the huge difference between IncA and Genius). | ||
Adventurekid
Sweden505 Posts
| ||
Raambo11
United States828 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:37 Xalorian wrote: People are whinning that Terran is WAY harder to play than Protoss... therefore, the imbalance should be blatant at the foreigners level, right, knowing that Koreans are way closer to the skill ceiling? But, looking at the numbers, Overall win rate around the world, so including Korea, is pretty much perfectly balanced for every race, while being super Protoss favored in every match up in Korea... Logically, that means that if you excluded Korea from the overall winrate and that you are only keeping foreigners numbers, Protoss are actually at the lower end of the graph. Not by much, but still under 50% in each match up outside Korea. If those numbers include only high level play... that means that Terran are actually beating protoss more than 50% of the time outside Korea. So, actually, the "Protoss is WAY easier to play" seems like bullshit to me. And i'm actually playing Zerg and Terran... so no, it's not bias talking... i'm just looking at numbers. You probably think this way because your looking at the numbers, and havn't actually played protoss. People get so carried away with the numbers all the time, but considering most of the sample sizes for basically every set of Data that comes onto TL are so small, you can't really get an accurate reading on whats going on. That being said Blizzard is fond of making changes on small sample sizes, and I wish they wouldn't change things so hastily. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 06 2012 15:08 Raambo11 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2012 22:37 Xalorian wrote: People are whinning that Terran is WAY harder to play than Protoss... therefore, the imbalance should be blatant at the foreigners level, right, knowing that Koreans are way closer to the skill ceiling? But, looking at the numbers, Overall win rate around the world, so including Korea, is pretty much perfectly balanced for every race, while being super Protoss favored in every match up in Korea... Logically, that means that if you excluded Korea from the overall winrate and that you are only keeping foreigners numbers, Protoss are actually at the lower end of the graph. Not by much, but still under 50% in each match up outside Korea. If those numbers include only high level play... that means that Terran are actually beating protoss more than 50% of the time outside Korea. So, actually, the "Protoss is WAY easier to play" seems like bullshit to me. And i'm actually playing Zerg and Terran... so no, it's not bias talking... i'm just looking at numbers. You probably think this way because your looking at the numbers, and havn't actually played protoss. People get so carried away with the numbers all the time, but considering most of the sample sizes for basically every set of Data that comes onto TL are so small, you can't really get an accurate reading on whats going on. That being said Blizzard is fond of making changes on small sample sizes, and I wish they wouldn't change things so hastily. what? -) a few thousand games is NOT a small samplesize -) blizzard has their own stats from the ladder ladder and from tournament play; at least that's what they say | ||
Orracle
United States314 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:25 Hakanfrog wrote: I´d like to point out that the "mediocre" protoss beat the "respectable" protoss 3-0. I know you're saying this in a sarcastic sense, but I agree. I think Genius is possibly the best Protoss in the world right now. Watching how he handled sC's multitasking was insane. To say Genius "protossed" his way into the finals is just silly. The guy is amazing. This doesn't mean I don't think there is balance issues with PvT, but people should give respect to a great protoss. | ||
Skwid1g
United States953 Posts
On March 06 2012 16:42 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2012 15:08 Raambo11 wrote: On March 05 2012 22:37 Xalorian wrote: People are whinning that Terran is WAY harder to play than Protoss... therefore, the imbalance should be blatant at the foreigners level, right, knowing that Koreans are way closer to the skill ceiling? But, looking at the numbers, Overall win rate around the world, so including Korea, is pretty much perfectly balanced for every race, while being super Protoss favored in every match up in Korea... Logically, that means that if you excluded Korea from the overall winrate and that you are only keeping foreigners numbers, Protoss are actually at the lower end of the graph. Not by much, but still under 50% in each match up outside Korea. If those numbers include only high level play... that means that Terran are actually beating protoss more than 50% of the time outside Korea. So, actually, the "Protoss is WAY easier to play" seems like bullshit to me. And i'm actually playing Zerg and Terran... so no, it's not bias talking... i'm just looking at numbers. You probably think this way because your looking at the numbers, and havn't actually played protoss. People get so carried away with the numbers all the time, but considering most of the sample sizes for basically every set of Data that comes onto TL are so small, you can't really get an accurate reading on whats going on. That being said Blizzard is fond of making changes on small sample sizes, and I wish they wouldn't change things so hastily. what? -) a few thousand games is NOT a small samplesize -) blizzard has their own stats from the ladder ladder and from tournament play; at least that's what they say A few thousand games is a tiny sample size that is basically meaningless. BW has swung from one race dominating to another just from maps/people figuring things out. A few thousand games coming out with a 5% higher win-rate for one race is meaningless and the fact that people actually use this to back up their arguments is beyond retarded. | ||
eighteen8
105 Posts
| ||
Ganseng
Russian Federation473 Posts
korean graphs look really bad. but the sample size isn't sufficient imo. overall blizzard is nearing really solid balance - but at a cost of game diversity. | ||
Amui
Canada10558 Posts
On March 18 2012 18:45 eighteen8 wrote: problem with a graph like this is, that it doesnt show the effort to actually get a win as race X, although effort is one of the biggest unit of measurement in balance. Let's say all one race had was a melee unit, and one of the other races, has a ranged unit, that when properly controlled, can infinitely kite the melee unit. Despite the fact that it takes the ranged unit 5 times longer to kill the melee than vice versa, the game is imbalanced in favor of the ranged race, even though you can argue it takes ridiculously more effort to kite with the ranged units. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Maybe its because Korean statistic fluctuate too much? A month is probably not enough. Look at PvZ, it's all up and down, there is no usefull conlucsion to be made. | ||
thezanursic
5478 Posts
| ||
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
| ||
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On March 18 2012 19:20 thezanursic wrote: How do you get this statisctics? He gets them from the TLPD- that thing you see on the right see of the screen on TL. It's a database that has the results of all significant tournament games for both the international scene and Korea. | ||
Azzur
Australia6202 Posts
| ||
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On March 21 2012 17:47 Corsica wrote: funny how its first time in a year where protoss winning more in PvT and all terran start crying so much... funny how you are either blind or didn't look at the graphs at all. | ||
di3alot
172 Posts
| ||
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On March 18 2012 18:16 Skwid1g wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2012 16:42 Big J wrote: On March 06 2012 15:08 Raambo11 wrote: On March 05 2012 22:37 Xalorian wrote: People are whinning that Terran is WAY harder to play than Protoss... therefore, the imbalance should be blatant at the foreigners level, right, knowing that Koreans are way closer to the skill ceiling? But, looking at the numbers, Overall win rate around the world, so including Korea, is pretty much perfectly balanced for every race, while being super Protoss favored in every match up in Korea... Logically, that means that if you excluded Korea from the overall winrate and that you are only keeping foreigners numbers, Protoss are actually at the lower end of the graph. Not by much, but still under 50% in each match up outside Korea. If those numbers include only high level play... that means that Terran are actually beating protoss more than 50% of the time outside Korea. So, actually, the "Protoss is WAY easier to play" seems like bullshit to me. And i'm actually playing Zerg and Terran... so no, it's not bias talking... i'm just looking at numbers. You probably think this way because your looking at the numbers, and havn't actually played protoss. People get so carried away with the numbers all the time, but considering most of the sample sizes for basically every set of Data that comes onto TL are so small, you can't really get an accurate reading on whats going on. That being said Blizzard is fond of making changes on small sample sizes, and I wish they wouldn't change things so hastily. what? -) a few thousand games is NOT a small samplesize -) blizzard has their own stats from the ladder ladder and from tournament play; at least that's what they say A few thousand games is a tiny sample size that is basically meaningless. BW has swung from one race dominating to another just from maps/people figuring things out. A few thousand games coming out with a 5% higher win-rate for one race is meaningless and the fact that people actually use this to back up their arguments is beyond retarded. It's neither tiny or meaningless, maybe you should take a course in statistics. Of course many people are drawing unreasonable conclusions from it but saying it's meaningless is much more ignorant than using it (in a sane way) to back up ones argument. | ||
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
I mean just look at the graphs of how long you terrans have been owning us through the year, let us enjoy this month. | ||
Kakaru2
198 Posts
| ||
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:45 itsjuspeter wrote: I'm getting so damn sick and tired of all this Terran whine everywhere I go. GUYS it's been AGES since protoss had a decent run in the GSL, and NO big patches really hit that hurt the PvT matchup. All that changed was SNIPE DMG which does not affect TvP at all. All the success of protoss atm is innovation. Double forge experimentation, making it extremely safe and viable. Now that it has been refined to a point where protoss can safely get to the lategame (its strong point) our % is going up. I say give it some time, terrans will have to tough this one out a bit, its not like we're all inning you with an unbeatable build that needed to be patched. I hear a lot say, a slow transition into mass ghosts is a way but let's wait a bit and see then judge. I for one am glad protoss is ahead for ONCE after so long of Terran dominance. Stop the whining, its way out of hand. Enjoy the metagame as it continues to fluctuate and bring us interesting new strategies and games. ? almost every balance change since beta has indirectly or directly effected the PvT matchup... toss upgrade buff, immortal buff, archon buff, emp nerfs, ghost cost change nerf, tank nerf, thor nerf, hellion nerf, stim nerf, rax nerf, snipe nerf. also, TvP is not interesting. lop sided games are incredibly uncomfortable to watch.... unless it's MC or someone else who refuses to play PvT easy mode. watching a typical TvP is like watching ZvP back when protoss could just get 200/200 and then win. | ||
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:55 shizna wrote: Show nested quote + On March 21 2012 18:45 itsjuspeter wrote: I'm getting so damn sick and tired of all this Terran whine everywhere I go. GUYS it's been AGES since protoss had a decent run in the GSL, and NO big patches really hit that hurt the PvT matchup. All that changed was SNIPE DMG which does not affect TvP at all. All the success of protoss atm is innovation. Double forge experimentation, making it extremely safe and viable. Now that it has been refined to a point where protoss can safely get to the lategame (its strong point) our % is going up. I say give it some time, terrans will have to tough this one out a bit, its not like we're all inning you with an unbeatable build that needed to be patched. I hear a lot say, a slow transition into mass ghosts is a way but let's wait a bit and see then judge. I for one am glad protoss is ahead for ONCE after so long of Terran dominance. Stop the whining, its way out of hand. Enjoy the metagame as it continues to fluctuate and bring us interesting new strategies and games. ? almost every balance change since beta has indirectly or directly effected the PvT matchup... toss upgrade buff, immortal buff, archon buff, emp nerfs, ghost cost change nerf, tank nerf, thor nerf, hellion nerf, stim nerf, rax nerf, snipe nerf. also, TvP is not interesting. lop sided games are incredibly uncomfortable to watch.... unless it's MC or someone else who refuses to play PvT easy mode. I won't get into a long discussion about this but, Ghost cost was a buff, go find the post about it somewhere in TL and why it was implemented. The protoss upgrade buff seemed reasonable, did you see the shield upgrade costs? Stim nerf was needed to stop 3 racks timings or 1 base stim timings which were crushing zergs. Helion nerf was inteneded to help zerg as well indirectly help protoss, 2 helions could potentially clean a mineral line with blue flame(which btw can still be done with a +1 mech weapons upgrade) and the nerf came to give the opponents a couple more seconds to react before losing workers. Tank nerf was NEEDED, they were too efficient against basically everything, i remember the beta, it was insane with 70 damage tanks. Immortal was NEEDED to address the 1-1-1. EMP nerf isn't that huge, it's been overly discussed. Thor nerf is debatable but auto scv repair was pretty ridiculous. Archon buff was needed, now PvP is able to evolve more and archons which are lierally 100/300 units can't get kited by marauders as efficiently anymore. I think i got most of it? Yes I agree TvP is quite a stale matchup, I feel that way when I play, and indeed there needs to be something done to "make the matchup more dynamic" but I don't believe anything is broken unless given more time. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 21 2012 19:03 itsjuspeter wrote: Show nested quote + On March 21 2012 18:55 shizna wrote: On March 21 2012 18:45 itsjuspeter wrote: I'm getting so damn sick and tired of all this Terran whine everywhere I go. GUYS it's been AGES since protoss had a decent run in the GSL, and NO big patches really hit that hurt the PvT matchup. All that changed was SNIPE DMG which does not affect TvP at all. All the success of protoss atm is innovation. Double forge experimentation, making it extremely safe and viable. Now that it has been refined to a point where protoss can safely get to the lategame (its strong point) our % is going up. I say give it some time, terrans will have to tough this one out a bit, its not like we're all inning you with an unbeatable build that needed to be patched. I hear a lot say, a slow transition into mass ghosts is a way but let's wait a bit and see then judge. I for one am glad protoss is ahead for ONCE after so long of Terran dominance. Stop the whining, its way out of hand. Enjoy the metagame as it continues to fluctuate and bring us interesting new strategies and games. ? almost every balance change since beta has indirectly or directly effected the PvT matchup... toss upgrade buff, immortal buff, archon buff, emp nerfs, ghost cost change nerf, tank nerf, thor nerf, hellion nerf, stim nerf, rax nerf, snipe nerf. also, TvP is not interesting. lop sided games are incredibly uncomfortable to watch.... unless it's MC or someone else who refuses to play PvT easy mode. I won't get into a long discussion about this but, Ghost cost was a buff, go find the post about it somewhere in TL and why it was implemented. The protoss upgrade buff seemed reasonable, did you see the shield upgrade costs? Stim nerf was needed to stop 3 racks timings or 1 base stim timings which were crushing zergs. Helion nerf was inteneded to help zerg as well indirectly help protoss, 2 helions could potentially clean a mineral line with blue flame(which btw can still be done with a +1 mech weapons upgrade) and the nerf came to give the opponents a couple more seconds to react before losing workers. Tank nerf was NEEDED, they were too efficient against basically everything, i remember the beta, it was insane with 70 damage tanks. Immortal was NEEDED to address the 1-1-1. EMP nerf isn't that huge, it's been overly discussed. Thor nerf is debatable but auto scv repair was pretty ridiculous. Archon buff was needed, now PvP is able to evolve more and archons which are lierally 100/300 units can't get kited by marauders as efficiently anymore. I think i got most of it? Yes I agree TvP is quite a stale matchup, I feel that way when I play, and indeed there needs to be something done to "make the matchup more dynamic" but I don't believe anything is broken unless given more time. Reading the other guy's post might help you make yourself understood. He was talking about the fact that recent T nerfs, whatever their motivation, have had an adverse effect on Terrans in the TvP MU. You listing the motivations doesn't really contribute to the discussion. | ||
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
On March 21 2012 19:08 Ghanburighan wrote: Show nested quote + On March 21 2012 19:03 itsjuspeter wrote: On March 21 2012 18:55 shizna wrote: On March 21 2012 18:45 itsjuspeter wrote: I'm getting so damn sick and tired of all this Terran whine everywhere I go. GUYS it's been AGES since protoss had a decent run in the GSL, and NO big patches really hit that hurt the PvT matchup. All that changed was SNIPE DMG which does not affect TvP at all. All the success of protoss atm is innovation. Double forge experimentation, making it extremely safe and viable. Now that it has been refined to a point where protoss can safely get to the lategame (its strong point) our % is going up. I say give it some time, terrans will have to tough this one out a bit, its not like we're all inning you with an unbeatable build that needed to be patched. I hear a lot say, a slow transition into mass ghosts is a way but let's wait a bit and see then judge. I for one am glad protoss is ahead for ONCE after so long of Terran dominance. Stop the whining, its way out of hand. Enjoy the metagame as it continues to fluctuate and bring us interesting new strategies and games. ? almost every balance change since beta has indirectly or directly effected the PvT matchup... toss upgrade buff, immortal buff, archon buff, emp nerfs, ghost cost change nerf, tank nerf, thor nerf, hellion nerf, stim nerf, rax nerf, snipe nerf. also, TvP is not interesting. lop sided games are incredibly uncomfortable to watch.... unless it's MC or someone else who refuses to play PvT easy mode. I won't get into a long discussion about this but, Ghost cost was a buff, go find the post about it somewhere in TL and why it was implemented. The protoss upgrade buff seemed reasonable, did you see the shield upgrade costs? Stim nerf was needed to stop 3 racks timings or 1 base stim timings which were crushing zergs. Helion nerf was inteneded to help zerg as well indirectly help protoss, 2 helions could potentially clean a mineral line with blue flame(which btw can still be done with a +1 mech weapons upgrade) and the nerf came to give the opponents a couple more seconds to react before losing workers. Tank nerf was NEEDED, they were too efficient against basically everything, i remember the beta, it was insane with 70 damage tanks. Immortal was NEEDED to address the 1-1-1. EMP nerf isn't that huge, it's been overly discussed. Thor nerf is debatable but auto scv repair was pretty ridiculous. Archon buff was needed, now PvP is able to evolve more and archons which are lierally 100/300 units can't get kited by marauders as efficiently anymore. I think i got most of it? Yes I agree TvP is quite a stale matchup, I feel that way when I play, and indeed there needs to be something done to "make the matchup more dynamic" but I don't believe anything is broken unless given more time. Reading the other guy's post might help you make yourself understood. He was talking about the fact that recent T nerfs, whatever their motivation, have had an adverse effect on Terrans in the TvP MU. You listing the motivations doesn't really contribute to the discussion. And I stated the reasons to show you they were all needed or else ZvT would of been unplayable. Yes it can have an added affect on the TvP matchup but I can't really see anything much from it other than making certain stim timings weaker. The other nerfs other than that one were addressed directly at TvP and were done so to help the protoss out so you would expect protoss to do better after those, hence everything else was either for all matchups or the TvZ matchup. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:45 itsjuspeter wrote: I'm getting so damn sick and tired of all this Terran whine everywhere I go. GUYS it's been AGES since protoss had a decent run in the GSL, and NO big patches really hit that hurt the PvT matchup. All that changed was SNIPE DMG which does not affect TvP at all. All the success of protoss atm is innovation. Double forge experimentation, making it extremely safe and viable. Now that it has been refined to a point where protoss can safely get to the lategame (its strong point) our % is going up. I say give it some time, terrans will have to tough this one out a bit, its not like we're all inning you with an unbeatable build that needed to be patched. I hear a lot say, a slow transition into mass ghosts is a way but let's wait a bit and see then judge. I for one am glad protoss is ahead for ONCE after so long of Terran dominance. Stop the whining, its way out of hand. Enjoy the metagame as it continues to fluctuate and bring us interesting new strategies and games. I mean just look at the graphs of how long you terrans have been owning us through the year, let us enjoy this month. I've bolded the reason why someone pointed out patches that hurt TvP. | ||
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:24 ChaosTerran wrote: Show nested quote + On March 21 2012 17:47 Corsica wrote: funny how its first time in a year where protoss winning more in PvT and all terran start crying so much... funny how you are either blind or didn't look at the graphs at all. sry, two months...still we had <50% winrates all the time and didnt whine, never Protoss had adv vs Terran, like Terran has vs Protoss...so, bitch please. | ||
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
| ||
pres.sure
Germany104 Posts
http://t.co/w41IeE3D | ||
archonOOid
1983 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D the International zergs have for the first time beaten the 50% against terran and the korean zvt trend is also going up, go zerg! | ||
neoghaleon55
United States7434 Posts
so the second month in two years that zerg beats Terran. I wonder what build they're using in Korea. | ||
Shiori
3815 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. | ||
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. PvZ is Protoss favored this month though lol. -.- Wow first time ZvT is Zerg favored since the beginning of this game. Holy crap! This is amazing, congrats. | ||
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. | ||
onPHYRE
Bulgaria849 Posts
| ||
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. | ||
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. | ||
Shiori
3815 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. Is the phrase 'politically correct language' your substitute for argument? This is the second time I've seen you use it in the space of an hour. | ||
Applesqt
United States206 Posts
Edit: By doing very well I mean having high win rates in all match ups, not winning tournaments. | ||
Noocta
France12574 Posts
| ||
arfyron
518 Posts
| ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On April 06 2012 00:02 arfyron wrote: Zerg is the weakest race yet again. What a surprise. Don't know which graph you are watching, zerg isn't the weakest in international or Korean Or are you looking at February graph? | ||
Jaegeru
United Kingdom676 Posts
On April 06 2012 00:02 arfyron wrote: Zerg is the weakest race yet again. What a surprise. Zerg is improving internationally in all matchups, beating both terran and protoss so I don't know what you could be complaining about. But admittedly zerg is looking fairly bad in Korea vs protoss, however in contrast is looking good vs Terran (Proabably due to the ghost patch this month). But I'm putting that down to the small sample size of games being played in korea compared to the amount of matches internationally and coupled with the fact that in GSL you have ample time to prepare beforehand for a specific matchup. | ||
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. The fact that you're in master league pretty much makes your "data" irrelevant. The game is not balanced for master league or diamond league scrubs. Anywhere below MLG or GSL level, the problem is with you, not with the game and the way to win vs a player of a different race is by improving yourself - not changing the game. | ||
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. | ||
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote: As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics. Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise. It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though. A Hydra buff would be good. So they are actually used. | ||
Noocta
France12574 Posts
On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. I'm talking about TvZ. | ||
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On April 06 2012 01:47 Noocta wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. I'm talking about TvZ. Whoops! My bad :3. PvT balance discussion is all the rage these days. Also for some reason I forgot about the snipe nerf which I agree hurt Terran . | ||
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On April 06 2012 01:24 Piledriver wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. The fact that you're in master league pretty much makes your "data" irrelevant. The game is not balanced for master league or diamond league scrubs. Anywhere below MLG or GSL level, the problem is with you, not with the game and the way to win vs a player of a different race is by improving yourself - not changing the game. Except there is precedent of blizzard balancing for lower leauges like mine. It is in my best interest to complain and bitch to try to get something done. If not, then it is also blizzard's loss in a customer and tournament watcher. And I don't think I'm alone. Blah blah blah highest levels. I am past that at this point. I have no interest in playing starcraft if it isn't fun, and no interest in watching it if I am not playing it. At this point one of the three matchups is almost entirely unplayable and unfun for me. | ||
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. | ||
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:05 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 01:24 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. The fact that you're in master league pretty much makes your "data" irrelevant. The game is not balanced for master league or diamond league scrubs. Anywhere below MLG or GSL level, the problem is with you, not with the game and the way to win vs a player of a different race is by improving yourself - not changing the game. Except there is precedent of blizzard balancing for lower leauges like mine. It is in my best interest to complain and bitch to try to get something done. If not, then it is also blizzard's loss in a customer and tournament watcher. And I don't think I'm alone. Blah blah blah highest levels. I am past that at this point. I have no interest in playing starcraft if it isn't fun, and no interest in watching it if I am not playing it. At this point one of the three matchups is almost entirely unplayable and unfun for me. I'm struggling as Protoss against T and Z it's in my best interest to get this balanced for my gold league problems so which one of us is correct? | ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:05 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 01:24 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. The fact that you're in master league pretty much makes your "data" irrelevant. The game is not balanced for master league or diamond league scrubs. Anywhere below MLG or GSL level, the problem is with you, not with the game and the way to win vs a player of a different race is by improving yourself - not changing the game. Except there is precedent of blizzard balancing for lower leauges like mine. It is in my best interest to complain and bitch to try to get something done. If not, then it is also blizzard's loss in a customer and tournament watcher. And I don't think I'm alone. Blah blah blah highest levels. I am past that at this point. I have no interest in playing starcraft if it isn't fun, and no interest in watching it if I am not playing it. At this point one of the three matchups is almost entirely unplayable and unfun for me. And if they balance around low levels, then the game won't be balanced at all at the top levels, and instead of losing you and maybe a couple other customers, they will lose the entire pro scene. Can you see how it is logically better to keep the pro scene and balance around that, and allow the low league players to get better at the game to have it be more balanced? | ||
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... | ||
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. I don't think you know what politically correct means. | ||
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:19 Snowbear wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... wow that was a huge jump tvp win rate jesus and zvt for the first time since august of 2011 is favoring zerg. Always love looking at the stats and kinda funny how it swapped around from february to march . | ||
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:16 Denzil wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 03:05 Horseballs wrote: On April 06 2012 01:24 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:50 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:47 Piledriver wrote: On April 05 2012 23:43 Horseballs wrote: On April 05 2012 23:41 Shiori wrote: On April 05 2012 23:34 pres.sure wrote: If anyone is interested, the stats for March are out: http://t.co/w41IeE3D I bet a lot of Terrans will be feeling pretty silly right now, and a lot of my Aiur brethren will feel justified in complaining about abusive Zerg play in ZvP. I don't feel silly - I am still losing as much vs protoss as I was before in masters league. Then the problem is with you. Not with protoss. Can you substantiate that claim? I've got a year of data and replays to look at, you are just blindly spouting your politically correct language at me. The fact that you're in master league pretty much makes your "data" irrelevant. The game is not balanced for master league or diamond league scrubs. Anywhere below MLG or GSL level, the problem is with you, not with the game and the way to win vs a player of a different race is by improving yourself - not changing the game. Except there is precedent of blizzard balancing for lower leauges like mine. It is in my best interest to complain and bitch to try to get something done. If not, then it is also blizzard's loss in a customer and tournament watcher. And I don't think I'm alone. Blah blah blah highest levels. I am past that at this point. I have no interest in playing starcraft if it isn't fun, and no interest in watching it if I am not playing it. At this point one of the three matchups is almost entirely unplayable and unfun for me. I'm struggling as Protoss against T and Z it's in my best interest to get this balanced for my gold league problems so which one of us is correct? Of course it is in your best interest to get it balanced around your best problems, how could you argue otherwise? The real question is whether or not there is a general trend throughout the playerbase echoing your problems or if you are just bad at those matchups. If it is the former, then Blizzard may act on it. If it is the latter, then Blizzard wont act on it and shouldn't act on it. On April 06 2012 03:18 hunts wrote: And if they balance around low levels, then the game won't be balanced at all at the top levels, and instead of losing you and maybe a couple other customers, they will lose the entire pro scene. Can you see how it is logically better to keep the pro scene and balance around that, and allow the low league players to get better at the game to have it be more balanced? The pro scene is propped up by interested players and watchers. The pro scene depends on your average player being happy, and if more and more people are leaving the game for whatever reason that is bad for the pro scene. The tip-top levels of Broodwar were pretty competitive and generally considered balanced, and yet it never took off in the west and hardly had any playerbase because of the difficulty in competing for your average gamer. And in the end, I don't care about the pro scene when I am not having fun. I don't want to win all of the time, I just want to feel like I have a chance. On April 06 2012 03:23 tomatriedes wrote: I don't think you know what politically correct means. I do know what politically correct means, and apparently you don't. Talking about the game as if it all up to the player to improve and that there cannot be or isn't any underlying balance issue at stake is the epitome of politically correct language. It is entirely non-commital and intend to be unoffensive, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion. | ||
Sheppy
Scotland2 Posts
I do know what politically correct means, and apparently you don't. Talking about the game as if it all up to the player to improve and that there cannot be or isn't any underlying balance issue at stake is the epitome of politically correct language. It is entirely non-commital and intend to be unoffensive, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Made me lol, so much hyperbole, so much wrong. | ||
dacimvrl
Vatican City State582 Posts
| ||
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
I for example didn't even know there was such a thing as progaming or esports until I was a junior or senior in high school (in 2009 was around when I found out and got super interested in it). Now today it obviously is a lot more known about professionals, I know my friends have commentated on it a few times on how crazy it is that in korea they play starcraft professionally. With how internet is now I imagine if BW was released (with better graphics as I don't see a 2D game selling that well anymore for the most part) I imagine it would have hit off very well in the west compared to now. | ||
Horseballs
United States721 Posts
On April 06 2012 04:09 blade55555 wrote: Horseballs I disagree. I think the reason BW never hit it off in the west was the fact that nobody knew about progaming, internet wasn't as good as it is now or anything. You have to remember that BW was casted on TV and live audience and unless I am mistaken there were no live streams for awhile due to how bad internet was at the time. I remember some old TL vets saying they had to wait something like 24 hours before vods would be posted online and then they would have to wait another hour or so for the video to buffer so that they could watch it. I for example didn't even know there was such a thing as progaming or esports until I was a junior or senior in high school (in 2009 was around when I found out and got super interested in it). Now today it obviously is a lot more known about professionals, I know my friends have commentated on it a few times on how crazy it is that in korea they play starcraft professionally. With how internet is now I imagine if BW was released (with better graphics as I don't see a 2D game selling that well anymore for the most part) I imagine it would have hit off very well in the west compared to now. It still requires an audience that is interested in the game. Your points are valid, however I don't want my argument to be twisted and turned away from my main point, which is that considerations also have to be made for your everyday battlenet player as well as for the pro scene - and that it may even be the case that it is more important to give attention to your average player. | ||
Die4Ever
United States17430 Posts
| ||
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
SolidMoose
United States1240 Posts
On April 06 2012 03:19 Snowbear wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... I blame Byun. But seriously, if there's another Terran nerf because of this, I don't think I can handle it. It's just not going to be fun anymore. | ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On April 06 2012 04:14 Horseballs wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 04:09 blade55555 wrote: Horseballs I disagree. I think the reason BW never hit it off in the west was the fact that nobody knew about progaming, internet wasn't as good as it is now or anything. You have to remember that BW was casted on TV and live audience and unless I am mistaken there were no live streams for awhile due to how bad internet was at the time. I remember some old TL vets saying they had to wait something like 24 hours before vods would be posted online and then they would have to wait another hour or so for the video to buffer so that they could watch it. I for example didn't even know there was such a thing as progaming or esports until I was a junior or senior in high school (in 2009 was around when I found out and got super interested in it). Now today it obviously is a lot more known about professionals, I know my friends have commentated on it a few times on how crazy it is that in korea they play starcraft professionally. With how internet is now I imagine if BW was released (with better graphics as I don't see a 2D game selling that well anymore for the most part) I imagine it would have hit off very well in the west compared to now. It still requires an audience that is interested in the game. Your points are valid, however I don't want my argument to be twisted and turned away from my main point, which is that considerations also have to be made for your everyday battlenet player as well as for the pro scene - and that it may even be the case that it is more important to give attention to your average player. Ad Sc2 still has a large audience. You don't have to play 1v1 SC2 at a high level to enjoy watching it. There are plenty of people who watch it who don't even play 1v1 or SC2 at all. Also I'd argue that if you want to cry for low league balance changes, you've come to the wrong place. Tl.net is not a place that is meant for balance complaining, or crying for balance changes. Also I think the attitude of "I refuse to get better so I want the game to cater to my skill level" is a bad one to have, and will most likely not be taken to too kindly on these forums. Honestly, in your post you basically said "balance around my skill level or I will quit and never watch SC2 again." Is that really the sort of customers blizzard and esports needs? Ones who will cry and threaten to leave if they don't get their way? | ||
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
On April 06 2012 04:37 SolidMoose wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 03:19 Snowbear wrote: On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... I blame Byun. But seriously, if there's another Terran nerf because of this, I don't think I can handle it. It's just not going to be fun anymore. do you think its fun for the other races for last year? (specifically protoss) We have a few positive months and there is a crying unheard of. Terran have had alot of positive months. Alot | ||
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
| ||
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On April 06 2012 04:54 ZeromuS wrote: It always surprises me to see such high win rates for protoss when most of the time I see toss losing to zerg if they try to go for macro games. Seems like a lot of the koreans are going for 2 base timings more than anything else against Zerg Exactly. The issue with SC2 right now is not balance, even though it occasionally manifests itself in balance. It's design. Protoss 2base timings against Zerg are too strong. Zerg 3base Roach max is too strong against Protoss. Terran early/midgame is too strong against Protoss. Protoss lategame is too strong against Terran. Sure, that can be made "balanced", but it makes for a hell of a boring game. In order for this game to become really interesting, serious changes are going to have to be made to Marines, Roaches, Banshees, Mutalisks, Warp Gate, Sentries, Colossi, Larva Inject, and hell, probably some other parts of the game as well. | ||
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On April 06 2012 04:40 SuperYo1000 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 04:37 SolidMoose wrote: On April 06 2012 03:19 Snowbear wrote: On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... I blame Byun. But seriously, if there's another Terran nerf because of this, I don't think I can handle it. It's just not going to be fun anymore. do you think its fun for the other races for last year? (specifically protoss) We have a few positive months and there is a crying unheard of. Terran have had alot of positive months. Alot Exactly. I don't really get this attitude "oh noes, we are still owning the game hard and blizzard might nerf us once more, life is soo unfair for terran". Well buhu, what about the losing races? | ||
SolidMoose
United States1240 Posts
On April 06 2012 05:14 ceaRshaf wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 04:40 SuperYo1000 wrote: On April 06 2012 04:37 SolidMoose wrote: On April 06 2012 03:19 Snowbear wrote: On April 06 2012 03:13 Yonnua wrote: On April 06 2012 01:25 DrowSwordsman wrote: On April 05 2012 23:54 Noocta wrote: I guess the Ghost patch did his effect. :/ These are a month old, in the latest Terran beats Protoss handily both Korea-only and international. http://imgur.com/a/XmBDV Blizzard should let the game be for awhile. The Korea graph is just a duplicate of the international one. It even says international at the bottom. <.< Would like to see the actual Korean stats. Here is the korean one: http://i.imgur.com/VCQcQ.png As a terran it makes me sad, since TvP is already very hard (macro terran), and when I see these stats, we can expect another nerf... I blame Byun. But seriously, if there's another Terran nerf because of this, I don't think I can handle it. It's just not going to be fun anymore. do you think its fun for the other races for last year? (specifically protoss) We have a few positive months and there is a crying unheard of. Terran have had alot of positive months. Alot Exactly. I don't really get this attitude "oh noes, we are still owning the game hard and blizzard might nerf us once more, life is soo unfair for terran". Well buhu, what about the losing races? It's not fun when the hardest race to play gets even harder because the top koreans happen to play Terran. You should stop looking at top results because it is not representative of the experience 99.9% of Terrans are having. Another nerf is getting to the point where if you aren't pro, you simply can't play Terran. Congrats, the game is balanced at the top level. But I don't really care because it's no longer fun struggling. | ||
kmh
Finland351 Posts
On April 06 2012 05:53 SolidMoose wrote: It's not fun when the hardest race to play gets even harder because the top koreans happen to play Terran. You should stop looking at top results because it is not representative of the experience 99.9% of Terrans are having. Another nerf is getting to the point where if you aren't pro, you simply can't play Terran. Congrats, the game is balanced at the top level. But I don't really care because it's no longer fun struggling. If you play the ladder you win 50% of your games do you not? How then is your extraordinary struggling manifesting itself? It's not the game conspiring against you to make you lose - you even have have examples to look up to and strive to emulate. The solutions are out there within your grasp. Sure, you may not be pro, but then again neither are your opponents. Your non-pro control and macro should still prevail as long as you play better than your opponent. For the other races they lacked even pros to look up to and emulate when they were having a hard time. You have the solutions laid out for you - you simply have to execute them to the best of your abilities. I have zero sympathy for you when you say you are done struggling. Do you want easy wins without effort? If so this isn't the game for you. This game is all about the constant struggling. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Rogue vs Oliveira
Rogue vs Creator
Rogue vs Reynor
PiGStarcraft601
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g16249 sgares5442 Grubby3421 Liquid`RaSZi1724 shahzam506 FrodaN355 Hui .268 NuckleDu99 Mew2King77 PPMD28 Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • musti20045 47 StarCraft: Brood War• davetesta30 • Hupsaiya 8 • Gussbus • Poblha • Migwel • Laughngamez YouTube • LaughNgamez Trovo • IndyKCrew • aXEnki • intothetv • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
OSC
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
TerrOr vs Sziky
Nyoken vs Zhanhum
DaveTesta Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] BSL
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
DragOn vs MiStrZZZ
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
|
|